反对排外的盖尔语政策:对Ó Giollagáin和Caimbeul的回应

IF 0.5 Q4 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Wilson McLeod, R. Dunbar, Michelle Macleod, Bernadette O’Rourke, Stuart S. Dunmore, Timothy C. Armstrong
{"title":"反对排外的盖尔语政策:对Ó Giollagáin和Caimbeul的回应","authors":"Wilson McLeod, R. Dunbar, Michelle Macleod, Bernadette O’Rourke, Stuart S. Dunmore, Timothy C. Armstrong","doi":"10.3366/scot.2022.0399","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article considers a range of weaknesses and deficiencies in the article ‘Moving Beyond Asocial Minority-Language Policy’ by Conchúr Ó Giollagáin and Iain Caimbeul and the underlying research study on which it was based. The authors’ presentation of previous research was inadequate and the framing of their survey results was sensationalistic, risking the demoralisation of Gaelic speakers and the weakening of social or political support for the language. The authors fail to justify and properly define the key terms used in their analysis, including ‘vernacular community’ and ‘Gaelic group’, so that there is a pervasive lack of clarity to their discussion, with serious implications for their key policy proposal. We also identify shortcomings in the geographic framing of their study; which areas were included and which were not. We then challenge the social classification they use in their analysis, and their rigid distinction between Gaelic speakers in their study area and all those living elsewhere. We then demonstrate how the authors’ presentation of current Gaelic policy is incomplete, misleading and biased, and we critique their proposals for fundamental changes to the current policy structure, including the creation of a new Gaelic community trust. We argue that strengthening existing policy structures and exploiting such structures much more energetically and effectively offers a better approach to strengthening the language, both in the areas studied and elsewhere in the country.","PeriodicalId":43295,"journal":{"name":"Scottish Affairs","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Against Exclusionary Gaelic Language Policy: A Response to Ó Giollagáin and Caimbeul\",\"authors\":\"Wilson McLeod, R. Dunbar, Michelle Macleod, Bernadette O’Rourke, Stuart S. Dunmore, Timothy C. Armstrong\",\"doi\":\"10.3366/scot.2022.0399\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article considers a range of weaknesses and deficiencies in the article ‘Moving Beyond Asocial Minority-Language Policy’ by Conchúr Ó Giollagáin and Iain Caimbeul and the underlying research study on which it was based. The authors’ presentation of previous research was inadequate and the framing of their survey results was sensationalistic, risking the demoralisation of Gaelic speakers and the weakening of social or political support for the language. The authors fail to justify and properly define the key terms used in their analysis, including ‘vernacular community’ and ‘Gaelic group’, so that there is a pervasive lack of clarity to their discussion, with serious implications for their key policy proposal. We also identify shortcomings in the geographic framing of their study; which areas were included and which were not. We then challenge the social classification they use in their analysis, and their rigid distinction between Gaelic speakers in their study area and all those living elsewhere. We then demonstrate how the authors’ presentation of current Gaelic policy is incomplete, misleading and biased, and we critique their proposals for fundamental changes to the current policy structure, including the creation of a new Gaelic community trust. We argue that strengthening existing policy structures and exploiting such structures much more energetically and effectively offers a better approach to strengthening the language, both in the areas studied and elsewhere in the country.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43295,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scottish Affairs\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scottish Affairs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3366/scot.2022.0399\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scottish Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3366/scot.2022.0399","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文考虑了ConchúróGiollagáin和Iain Caimbul的文章《超越社会少数民族语言政策》中的一系列弱点和不足,以及它所基于的基础研究。作者对先前研究的陈述不足,调查结果的框架耸人听闻,有可能使讲盖尔语的人士气低落,削弱对该语言的社会或政治支持。作者未能证明并正确定义他们分析中使用的关键术语,包括“本土社区”和“盖尔群体”,因此他们的讨论普遍缺乏明确性,这对他们的关键政策提案产生了严重影响。我们还发现了他们研究的地理框架方面的不足;哪些区域被包括在内,哪些没有。然后,我们质疑他们在分析中使用的社会分类,以及他们在研究地区讲盖尔语的人和所有生活在其他地方的人之间的严格区别。然后,我们展示了作者对当前盖尔语政策的陈述是不完整、误导和有偏见的,我们批评了他们对当前政策结构进行根本性变革的建议,包括建立一个新的盖尔语社区信托。我们认为,在所研究的领域和该国其他地方,加强现有的政策结构并更积极有效地利用这些结构,可以为加强语言提供更好的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Against Exclusionary Gaelic Language Policy: A Response to Ó Giollagáin and Caimbeul
This article considers a range of weaknesses and deficiencies in the article ‘Moving Beyond Asocial Minority-Language Policy’ by Conchúr Ó Giollagáin and Iain Caimbeul and the underlying research study on which it was based. The authors’ presentation of previous research was inadequate and the framing of their survey results was sensationalistic, risking the demoralisation of Gaelic speakers and the weakening of social or political support for the language. The authors fail to justify and properly define the key terms used in their analysis, including ‘vernacular community’ and ‘Gaelic group’, so that there is a pervasive lack of clarity to their discussion, with serious implications for their key policy proposal. We also identify shortcomings in the geographic framing of their study; which areas were included and which were not. We then challenge the social classification they use in their analysis, and their rigid distinction between Gaelic speakers in their study area and all those living elsewhere. We then demonstrate how the authors’ presentation of current Gaelic policy is incomplete, misleading and biased, and we critique their proposals for fundamental changes to the current policy structure, including the creation of a new Gaelic community trust. We argue that strengthening existing policy structures and exploiting such structures much more energetically and effectively offers a better approach to strengthening the language, both in the areas studied and elsewhere in the country.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Scottish Affairs
Scottish Affairs POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
25.00%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: Scottish Affairs, founded in 1992, is the leading forum for debate on Scottish current affairs. Its predecessor was Scottish Government Yearbooks, published by the University of Edinburgh''s ''Unit for the Study of Government in Scotland'' between 1976 and 1992. The movement towards the setting up the Scottish Parliament in the 1990s, and then the debate in and around the Parliament since 1999, brought the need for a new analysis of Scottish politics, policy and society. Scottish Affairs provides that opportunity. Fully peer-reviewed, it publishes articles on matters of concern to people who are interested in the development of Scotland, often setting current affairs in an international or historical context, and in a context of debates about culture and identity. This includes articles about similarly placed small nations and regions throughout Europe and beyond. The articles are authoritative and rigorous without being technical and pedantic. No subject area is excluded, but all articles pay attention to the social and political context of their topics. Thus Scottish Affairs takes up a position between informed journalism and academic analysis, and provides a forum for dialogue between the two. The readers and contributors include journalists, politicians, civil servants, business people, academics, and people in general who take an informed interest in current affairs.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信