This post is written by Dr. Seunghyun Song (Assistant professor, Tilburg University). Based on her research on linguistic justice, she provides a tentative answer to the issue of the limits of the linguistic territoriality principle and its aim to protect languages. She uses the Dutch case as a proxy for these discussions.
Image by woodleywonderworks from Flickr (Creative Commons)
Read more: Limits of language promotion
Territoriality: what is it and why is it nice?
In philosophical terms, promotion and protection of languages found within its territory is called language policies that operate on the so-called territoriality principle (e.g. Van Parijs). Such language policies are found commonly around the world, such as Belgium, Canada, Spain, etc. I am for this territoriality principle. Let me just start with that. It is not only because of speakers of certain languages, where I wish their language-related interests to be met, but also because of the worth of seeing a unique language thrive.
Linguistically ‘wealthy’ want to get richer?
But where does the limit of territorial language policies lie? I think the limit lies depending on the current distribution of resources, for instance. In my view, a problem begins when already thriving linguistic groups impose policies to further their chances.
To illustrate what I mean, consider the academic linguistic scene in the Netherlands as an actual example (note, that similar circumstances may be happening in many other contexts as well).
In the past decade, English has been long embraced as the medium of instruction in Dutch higher education. This is partly due to the Dutch higher education heralding internationalization as one of its main virtues. And this rising dominance of English in Dutch higher education has been especially palpable after Brexit, where many international programs taught in English were offered widely to lure European international students (e.g., Erasmus students)
Recently, said presence of English as one of the (if not the) main tool of communication has triggered political scrutiny and concern. For instance, the Minister of Education, Culture and Science in the current Dutch government Eppo Bruins worried, “over the past several years international student numbers have grown sharply [in the Netherlands], resulting in … diminishing use of Dutch as the language of instruction.”
Significant attempts have been made to reverse this linguistic trend in the Netherlands, where the use of English increases while the use of Dutch diminishes. To restore Dutch as the main language of instruction, an educational bill named “Wet Internationalisering in Balans” (translated in English as “Internationalization in Balance”) was submitted to the House of Representatives in May 2024, which requires two-thirds of bachelor’s degrees to be taught in Dutch. As education minister Robbert Dijkgraaf describes, the bill allows “room in the curriculum for another language, but … it should not be more than a third. That means that most of your education is in Dutch.” This bill was explicitly stated as the means to restore Dutch as the norm in Dutch higher education and to safeguard Dutch citizens’ access to higher education.
The effects of this bill were palpable, especially at the level of informal practices. In some universities, while the majority of hires before the introduction of the bill included many international candidates with no Dutch proficiency, after the introduction of the bill, many of the hires (whether for fixed-term lecturer positions or assistant professorships) prioritized those who spoke Dutch as their primary or native language. One may argue that the bill has impacted the hiring process in Dutch University to become more local, if not nationalist.
Why is this a problem?
The problem consists of linguistic minorities being pushed away even further with such bills. Often, there are the costs of promoting and protecting a language, especially when a linguistically well-off groups impose further regulations to those who are not really thriving. This linguistic turn in Dutch academia may marginalize linguistic minorities in academia, enabling objectionable hierarchal relations among academics by dividing them into different linguistic groups: Dutch speakers and non-Dutch speakers.
So, although I am in agreement with territorial language policies, I do think it should come with a limit. When the groups who are already linguistically ‘wealthy’ wants to get richer, perhaps the implementation of strong territorial language policies may come with unwanted problems, such as the hierarchy of linguistic groups within said territory.
On the other hand, if territorial language policies are used for linguistic minorities who don’t have the such resources, who face the threat of language endangerment or more, then the worry may not arise (see Song 2023). Thus, the limit of territorial language policies lies depending on the current distribution of resources. In my view, a problem begins when already thriving linguistic groups impose policies to further their chances and this should not always be encouraged.
I think there is a worth in looking at current distribution of resources, whether one is privileged or not, before advancing territoriality principle. This way, we check whether the current status is unfair, linguistically speaking, and aim at how the world may be changed for the better.
Dr. Seunghyun Song is an Assistant Professor at Tilburg University (The Netherlands). Before coming to Tilburg, she was at KU Leuven (Flanders, Belgium), where she held FWO junior postdoc mandate. She also completed her PhD at KU Leuven prior to her postdoc there. Her main area of expertise is in linguistic justice and intergenerational justice. She is particularly interested in issues of reparative justice, historical injustice, and structural injustice approach. She is also invested in the field of social epistemology, especially on epistemic injustice and reparation, and lived experiences of marginalisation.
