Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Standardization
- cambridge handbooks in language and linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Standardization
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Revisiting Models and Theories of Language Standardization
- Part II Legitimacy, Authority and the Written Form
- Part III Norms, Literacy and Education
- 14 Language Endangerment and Standardization
- 15 Indigenous Languages, Standardization and Curricular Development
- 16 Polynomic Standards
- 17 Standard Languages and Standardization in the Context of Bilingual Education
- 18 Setting Standards for Language Learning and Assessment in Educational Contexts
- Part IV Beyond the National
- Part V Standardization in Late Modernity
- Name Index
- Subject Index
- References
16 - Polynomic Standards
The Enactment of Legitimate Variation
from Part III - Norms, Literacy and Education
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 July 2021
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Standardization
- cambridge handbooks in language and linguistics
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Standardization
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Revisiting Models and Theories of Language Standardization
- Part II Legitimacy, Authority and the Written Form
- Part III Norms, Literacy and Education
- 14 Language Endangerment and Standardization
- 15 Indigenous Languages, Standardization and Curricular Development
- 16 Polynomic Standards
- 17 Standard Languages and Standardization in the Context of Bilingual Education
- 18 Setting Standards for Language Learning and Assessment in Educational Contexts
- Part IV Beyond the National
- Part V Standardization in Late Modernity
- Name Index
- Subject Index
- References
Summary
This chapter explores plural or ‘polynomic’ standards, with special emphasis on the case of Corsica, where a polynomic standard is officially enshrined in Corsican language policy and practice. The principle of ‘polynomy’ is the mutual recognition, by all speakers and writers, of the legitimacy of all varieties of Corsican. Nowhere is this more visible than in orthographic standards, where there is a baseline of sound-to-spelling conventions to be used by writers to write as they speak. The chapter begins with a comparison of the Corsican case with the handful of other contexts in which variant spelling standards are legitimated. The discussion continues with polynomy in school contexts, where the polynomic standard for Corsican is visible to students in allof their Corsican textbooks, but is actively taught to varying degrees. The standard also exists in maximal contrast with French standard language ideology and practice that shapes most of these students’ schools. The chapter then analyses the ‘banal polynomy’ of public signage and webpages in both the public and private sphere, before closing with a critical assessment of the ways in which a polynomic standard both enables and constrains social actors, and its implications for how a minority language is defined and used.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of Language Standardization , pp. 442 - 469Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Clyne, M. (1992). Pluricentric languages: introduction. In Clyne, M., ed., Pluricentric Languages: Differing Norms in Different Nations. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Colonna, R. (2012). La revitalisation du corse ou l’émergence de projets de société concurrents. Lengas, 72, 113–32.Google Scholar
Costa, J. (2017). On the pros and cons of standardizing Scots: notes from the north of a small island. In Costa, J., Lane, P. & de Korne, H., eds., Standardizing Minority Languages: Reinventing Peripheral Languages in the 21st Century. London: Taylor and Francis, pp. 47–65.Google Scholar
Coupland, N. (2016). Labov, vernacularity and sociolinguistic change. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20(4), 409–30.Google Scholar
Coupland, N. & Kristiansen, T. (2011). Critical perspectives on language (de)standardisation. In Kristiansen, T. & Coupland, N., eds., Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe. Oslo: Novus, pp. 11–38.Google Scholar
Deumert, A. & Vandenbussche, W. (2003). Standard languages: taxonomies and histories. In Deumert, A. & Vandenbussche, W., eds., Germanic Standardisations: Past to Present. Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Devitt, A. J. (1989). Standardizing Written English: Diffusion in the Case of Scotland, 1520–1659. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Di Meglio, A. (1992). Polynomie et enseignement de la langue corse. PULA [Publications Universitaires de Linguistique et d'Anthropologie], 3/4, 127–30.Google Scholar
Geronimi, D. & Marchetti, P. (1971). Intricciate e` cambiarine: Manuel pratique de l’orthographe corse. Nogent-sur-Marne: Éditions Beaulieu.Google Scholar
Jaffe, A. (1999). Ideologies in Action: Language Politics on Corsica. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jaffe, A. (2003). Misrecognition unmasked? Polynomic language expert statuses and orthographic practices in Corsican schools. Pragmatics, 13(3/4), 515–38.Google Scholar
Jaffe, A. (2013). Minority language learning and communicative competence: models of identity and participation in Corsican adult language courses. Language & Communication, 33(4), 450–62.Google Scholar
Jaffe, A. (2015). Defining the new speaker: theoretical perspectives and learner trajectories. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 231, 21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaffe, A. et al. (2015). Introduction: heteroglossia, performance, power, and participation. Language in Society, 44, 135–9.Google Scholar
Luedi, G. (1992). French as a pluricentric language. In Clyne, M., ed., Pluricentric Languages. New York: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 149–77.Google Scholar
Marcellesi, J.-B. (1984). La définition des langues en domaine roman: les enseignements à tirer de la situation corse. In Bouvier, J.-C., ed., Actes du Congre`s de Linguistique et de Philologie Romanes. Vol. V: Sociolinguistique. Aix-en-Provence: Université d’Aix-en Provence, pp. 309–14.Google Scholar
Marcellesi, J.-B. (1989). Corse et théorie sociolinguistique: reflets croisés. In Ravis-Giordani, G., ed., L’Iˆle miroir. Ajaccio: La Marge, pp. 165–74.Google Scholar
McClure, J. D. (1995). Scots and Its Literature. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
ó Murchadha, N. P. (2016). The efficacy of unitary and polynomic models of codification in minority contexts: ideological, pragmatic and pedagogical issues in the codification of Irish. Journal of Multinational and Multicultural Development, 37(2), 199–215.Google Scholar
Pietikainen, S., Kelly-Holmes, H., Jaffe, A. & Coupland, N. (2016). Sociolinguistics from the Periphery: Small Languages in New Circumstances. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sallabank, J. (2010). Standardisation, prescription and polynomie: can Guernsey follow the Corsican model? Current Issues in Language Planning, 11(4), 311–30.Google Scholar
Sebba, M. (2007). Orthography and Society: The Cultural Politics of Spelling around the World. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Strand, T. (2012). Winning the dialect popularity contest: mass-mediated ideologies and local responses in Valdres, Norway. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 22(1), 23–43.Google Scholar
Walton, S. & Jaffe, A. (2000). The voices people read: orthography and the representation of nonstandard dialect. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4(4), 569–95.Google Scholar
Woolard, K. (1998). Simultaneity and bivalency as strategies in bilingualism. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 8(1), 3–29.Google Scholar
Woolard, K. (2016). Singular and Plural: Ideologies of Linguistic Authority in 21st Century Catalonia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar