Klik hier om die volledige joernaal in PDF-formaat af te laai - LitNet

LitNet Akademies Jaargang 9(2), Augustus 2012
principle in question. Although the measuring is subjective, it does reveal results that provide
deeper insight into the structuring of different language acts.
This instrument is then tested comparing four prototypical language acts: the Official
Languages Act of Canada (OLA in Table 1 below) and Estonia’s Language Act, or
Keeleseadus (Ks) as typical prototypes of institutionalising language legislation (establishing
multilingual and monolingual language regimes respectively) on the one hand and Quebec’s
Charte de la langue française (Clf) and Wales’ Welsh Language Act (WLA) as prototypical
normalising language acts (of the promotional and corrective normalising type respectively).
The end result of this comparative analysis is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. The extent of the presence of sociolinguistic principles of language legislation in
four prototypical language acts
Principles
Fundamenta
l
Domain-
determining
Legal
instrumental
Proclamation of
official language
Treatment of
linking language
issue
Object of
language act
Communications
with citizenry
Language of
education
Linguistic
aspects of
citizenship
Institutionalising language
legislation
Multilingua
l
Normalising language
legislation
Monolingual Promotional Corrective
OLA Ks Clf WLA
5 5 5 0
5 0 0 0
5 5 3 5
5 5 5 5
3 5 5 0
0 5 0 0
Variety 5 3 5 5
Authoritativenes
s
Demarcation of
language rights
5 3 5 5
5 5 5 0
Total 38 36 33 20
The comparison in Table 1 not only accentuates the principal differences between the two
broad categories of language legislation, but also highlights some important shared features,
311