The communicative value of local languages: An underestimated interest in theories of linguistic justice

Abstract

Contemporary theories of linguistic justice still tend to deal with a simple dichotomy between majority languages, assumed to be the best communicative or instrumental tools (thus the best tools in terms of socio-economic justice and political participation), and minority languages, assumed to be basically markers of identity (relevant only in terms of ethno-cultural interests when competing with the former). Two problems, intrinsic to the concepts used, shape such a duality. Firstly, it requires an empirical contextualisation of what is meant by majority and minority language. Secondly, it presupposes a sharp detachment between communication and identity in which communication tends to be understood as a simple information transfer. In this paper, I argue that, when both empirical context and an enriched notion of communication focused on effectiveness are considered, local languages, even if categorised as minority languages, do have an instrumental value which has received little attention up to now. Such an approach has normative and policy consequences. From a normative perspective, it strengthens the rationale for supporting linguistic pluralism, highlights the fact that linguistic preferences of multilinguals matter on instrumental grounds (even if languages learnt are local languages) and suggests that assuming the communicative superiority of most widely spread or majority languages entails a deviation from liberal neutrality, regarding the kinds of good life an individual can pursue. For language policies, it points to fostering a broad individual and institutional multilingualism aimed at sustaining plurality and based on a double enabling of people, in terms of both their linguistic skills and their fair opportunities to use local and wider languages.