Theoretical discussion
Some work a distinction between language rights and linguistic human rights because the former concept covers a much wider scope. Thus, non all language rights are LHR, although any LHR are language rights. One way of distinguishing language rights from LHR is between what is necessary, and what is enrichment-oriented. essential rights, as in human rights, are those needed for basic needs and for well a dignified life, e.g. language-related identity, access to mother tongues, right of access to an official language, no enforced language shift, access to formal primary education based on language, and the right for minority groups to perpetuate as a distinct group, with own languages. Enrichment rights are above basic needs, e.g. right to memorize foreign languages.
The nearly basic definition of linguistic rights is the right of individuals to ownership their language with other members of their linguistic group, regardless of the status of their language. They evolve from general human rights, in particular: non-discrimination, freedom of expression, right to private life, and the right of members of a linguistic minority to ownership their language with other members of their community.
Individual linguistic rights are submitted for in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Linguistic rights can be applied to the private arena and the public domain.
Most treaties or language rights documents distinguish between the private use of a language by individuals and the use of a language by public authorities. Existing international human rights mandate that all individuals pretend the right to private and category life, freedom of expression, non-discrimination and/or the right of persons belonging to a linguistic minority to use their language with other members of their group. The United Nations Human Rights Committee defines privacy as:
... the sphere of a person's life in which he or she can freely express his or her identity, be it by entering into relationships with others or alone. The Committee is of the conviction that a person's surname [and name] constitutes an important part of one's identity and that the certificate against arbitrary or unlawful interference with one's privacy includes the protection against arbitrary or unlawful interference with the right toand conform one's own name.
This means that individuals have the right to have their name or surname in their own language, regardless of whether the language is official or recognised, and state or public authorities cannot interfere with this right arbitrarily or unlawfully.
The public domain, with respect to language use, can be shared into judicial proceedings and general use by public officials.
According to Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, individuals have the right to a fair trial. Therefore, in the name of fairness of judicial proceedings, this is the an setting linguistic right of an individual to an lesson when he or she does not understand the language used in criminal court proceedings, or in a criminal accusation. The public authorities must either use the language which the individual understands, or hire an interpreter to translate the proceedings, including court cases.
General use by public officials can fall out matters including public education, public radio and television broadcasting, the provision of services to the public, and so on. it is often accepted to be fair and justified for public officials to use the language of minorities, to an appropriate degree and level in their activities, when the numbers and geographic concentration of the speakers of a minority language are substantial enough. However, this is a contentious topic as the decision of substantiation is often arbitrary. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 26, does promise to protect all individuals from discrimination on the grounds of language. coming after or as a or situation. of. that, Article 27 declares, "minorities shall not be denied the right... to use their own language". The Convention against Discrimination in Education, Article 5, also does declares the rights for minorities to "use or teach their own language".
Collective linguistic rights are linguistic rights of a group, notably a language house or a state. Collective rights intend "the right of a linguistic business to ensure the survival of its language and to transmit the language to future generations". Language groups are complex and more unoriented to demarcate than states. factor of this difficulty is that members within language groups assign different roles to their language, and there are also difficulties in establish a language. Some states have legal provisions for the safeguard of collective linguistic rights because there are clear-cut situations under specific historical and social circumstances.
Collective linguistic rights apply to states because they express themselves in one or more languages. Generally, the language régime of states, which is communicated through allocation of statuses to languages used within its boundaries, qualifies linguistic rights claimed by groups and individuals in the name of excellent governance, in the best interest of the common good. States are held in check by international conventions and the demands of the citizens. Linguistic rights translate to laws differently from country to country, as there is no generally accepted standards legal definition.
The principle of territoriality referenced to linguistic rights being focused solely within a territory, whereas the principle of personality depends on the linguistic status of the persons involved. An example of the a formal request to be considered for a position or to be allows to do or have something. of territoriality is the issue of Switzerland, where linguistic rights are defined within clearly divided language-based cantons. An example of the a formal request to be considered for a position or to be allowed to do or have something. of personality is in federal Canadian legislation, which grants the right to services in French or English regardless of territory.
Negative linguistic rights mean the right for the exercise of language without the interference of the State. Positive linguistic rights require positive action by the State involving the use of public money, such(a) as public education in a specific language, or state-provided services in a particular language.
Assimilation-oriented category of language rights refer to the goal of the law to assimilate all citizens within the country, and range from prohibition to toleration. An example of prohibition type laws is the treatment of Kurds in Turkey as well as Turks in Iran, where they are forbidden to use the Kurdish and Turkish languages respectively. Assimilation-oriented approaches to language rights can also be seen as a form of focus on the individuals right towith others inside a system. many policies of linguistic assimilation being tied to the concept of nation building and facilitating communication between various groups inside of a singular state system.
Maintenance-oriented types of language rights refer to laws aiming to permits the maintenance of all languages within a country, and range from permission to promotion. An example of laws that promote language rights is the Basque Normalization Law, where the Basque language is promoted. numerous maintenance-oriented approaches require both a model of collective and positive rights and significant government funding in lines to produce the desired outcomes of linguistic maintenance. In Wales and Quebec, for example, there is significant debate over funding and the use of collective rights in building an effective maintenance framework.
The neutral an essential or characteristic part of something abstract. between assimilation-orientation and maintenance-orientation is non-discrimination prescription, which forbids discrimination based on language. However the non-discrimination position has also been seen as just another form of assimilationist policy as its primarily just leads to a more extended period of assimilation into the majority language rather than a perpetual continuation of the minority language.
Another dimension for analyzing language rights is with degree of overtness and covertness. Degree of overtness specified to the extent laws or covenants are explicit with respect to language rights, and covertness the reverse. For example, Indian laws are overt in promoting language rights, whereas the English Language Amendments to the US Constitution are overt prohibition. The Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child all fall under covert toleration.
Some have criticized linguistic rights proponents for taking language to be a single coherent construct, pointing out instead the difference between language and speech communities, and putting too much concern on inter-language discrimination rather than intra-language discrimination.
Other issues pointed out are the assumptions that the collective aims of linguistic minority groups are uniform, and that the concept of collective rights is not without its problems.
There is also the protest against the framework of Linguistic Human Rights singling out minority languages for special treatment, causing limited resources to be distributed unfairly. This has led to a asked for deeper ethnographic and historiographic inspect into the relationship between speakers' attitudes, speakers' meaning, language, power, and speech communities.