Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?

Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful
to measure linguistic justice?
Federico Gobbo
F.Gobbo@uva.nl
RECODE Workshop The Politics of Multilingualism,
19-20 June 2014, Geneva
1 de 35

A methodological issue still open
Languages live by their speakers: they shape their identity, assess
attitudes towards life, give opportunities for mobility – both in terms
of levels in society and in movement across places.
Research question: how to compare the linguistic justice level of (or
more) languages in a given ecolinguistic system – deﬁned by a
territory?
3 de 35

The need of an index of linguistic justice
Here, I examine the Calvet Language Barometer (CLB) in its last
version (2012)1 under the perspective of linguistic justice.
The term ‘linguistic justice’ cannot be uniquely deﬁned:
What are we measuring?
1
Available at: http://wikilf.culture.fr/barometre2012/

Justice for whom, e.g, national citizens and/or migrants?
1

At which level of analysis:
1

local?
1

local?
national?
1

local?
national?
transnational?
1

Outline
The CLB is aimed to measure the “linguistic altitude” of languages in
isolation, not to compare languages in a given ecolinguistic system.
Therefore, it cannot be used oﬀ the shelf, but it should be adjusted
for our needs. I will proceed backwards by:
a presentation of the CLB as a whole;
a discussion of the parameters;
an application of the CLB to the gravitational model, also by
Calvet (1999, 2006);
an application to the case study of South Tyrol.
5 de 35

An overview of the barometer
The CLB was launched in 2010 through a web site, then it was
updated in 2012. It considers the 563 world languages with +500,000
L1 speakers. The main source is Ethnologue2.
The actual parameters are 11, but more can be added according to
needs (e.g., scientiﬁc publications in that language per year). One of
the main problem is completeness: when data are not available, the
parameter is set to zero or to the average value of the column
according to ‘similar’ languages.
Diﬀerent weights can be given to the parameters, so to adjust the
CLB to the needs of the user.
2
Updated yearly. See: http://www.ethnologue.com/.7 de 35

The parameters
1. Number of L1 speakers;
8 de 35

The parameters
2. Entropy;
8 de 35

The parameters
2. Entropy;
3. Vehicularity;
8 de 35

The parameters
2. Entropy;
3. Vehicularity;
4. Oﬃcial status;
8 de 35

The parameters
2. Entropy;
3. Vehicularity;
4. Oﬃcial status;
5. Index Translationum: source language;
8 de 35

The parameters
2. Entropy;
3. Vehicularity;
4. Oﬃcial status;
6. Index Translationum: target language;
8 de 35

The parameters
2. Entropy;
3. Vehicularity;
4. Oﬃcial status;
7. International literary awards;
8 de 35

The parameters
2. Entropy;
3. Vehicularity;
4. Oﬃcial status;
8. Number of Wikipedia articles;
8 de 35

The parameters
2. Entropy;
3. Vehicularity;
4. Oﬃcial status;
9. Human Development Index (HDI);
8 de 35

The parameters
2. Entropy;
3. Vehicularity;
4. Oﬃcial status;
10. Total fertility rate;
8 de 35

The parameters
2. Entropy;
3. Vehicularity;
4. Oﬃcial status;
10. Total fertility rate;
11. Language use in the Internet.
8 de 35

Parameter 1: number of L1 speakers
Parameter 1 is the most important: only medium-sized world
languages (+500,000) are considered in the CLB. A problem of
Ethnologue is how to consider linguistic map of the world. Two
problems in counting L1 speakers:
Malay is listed in +20 varieties → grouped as one;
Greek minorities in Italy (Griko and Grecanico) not counted as
diﬀerent from Modern Greek ← questionable!
The other limitation of Ethnologue is the non-consideration of L2
speakers: e.g., Swahili in Tanzania is far more spoken as L2 than as
L1 → solution is parameter 3: vehicularity.
9 de 35

Parameter 2: entropy
Coming from physics, entropy here means the number of countries
where the language is spoken. If there is one country only, entropy
will be zero.
Again, there are some sociolinguistic problems here:
language varieties are not always uniform within a single country;
10 de 35

will be zero.
consideration only of the diatopic axis, not diastratic (for instance);
10 de 35

will be zero.
consideration only of the diatopic axis, not diastratic (for instance);
clear preminence to languages with normative written varieties.
10 de 35

Parameter 3: vehicularity
When a language is vehicular? In the CLB, there is a clear deﬁnition.
The equation to calculate the vehicularity of a language as a ratio is
simple and eﬀective:
L2
L1 + L2
Each single parameter is can be evaluated as if it were the only one:
Hindi is calculated as if it has no L1 speakers (!)
However, the cleanliness of the parameter is rather useful.
11 de 35

Parameter 4: official status
Here, the source of data is the web site maintained by Jacques
Leclerc (Université Laval). Scores are attributed in the following way:
1.0 if the language is official in a sovereign state;
0.5 if the language is official in a non-sovereign state.
Some cases are paradoxical: Italian is official in Italy, Switzerland, San
Marino, Vatican and the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint
John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta. Overall score is 4.5 (place
8) before Mandarin Chinese. But are all states in the world equal in
power? Of course not.
12 de 35

Parameters 5 and 6: the role of translation
Here, the source of data is the Index Translationium by Unesco, which
publishes the number of translations by language since 1979,
classiﬁed along nine categories.
Again, the world map of Ethnologue and Unesco does not always
match; moreover, there is the problem of the split of Serbo-Croatian
in Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin, and the complex
situation of Arabic. The solution by Calvet & Calvet is to use ISO
codes as the main criterion, which is reasonable.
A greater problem is methodological: these parameters rely not on
data but on an existing index, henceforth the CLB conﬁgures partially
as a meta-index.
13 de 35

Parameter 7: international literary awards
Another methodological problem is parameter independence: it is
clear that literary awards are possible iﬀ the Index Translationum is
high. How it works:
The Nobel Prize is the most known award, but it is considered
eurocentric and left-winged, so the authors consider other awards as
well.
winners count as 1, for every language in which they write;
nominees counts 0.5 (even if nomineed many times).
Possible paradox: Ngugi wa Thiong’o counts 2, for English and
Kikuyu (ironic for this writer’s language policy).
14 de 35

Parameter 8: Number of Wikipedia articles
Wikipedia3 offers a detailed raw data of its use according to the
different languages. The CLB considers only the “grand total”, which
is too superficial: for instance, a software bot can generate stubs
automatically – in 2008 it happened with Volapük (an international
auxiliary language launched before Esperanto, now used for literary
and ludic purposes).
The number of active users could be used to measure more in deep
the impact of Wikipedia on a language community (it seems that the
Dutch contributors are very active compared to the Polish ones, for
example). A recent study has also highlighted that the role of
multilingual Wikipedia contributors (just over 15%) is not to be
underestimated.
3
See http://www.wikipedia.org/.15 de 35

Parameters 9 and 10: HDI and total fertility rate
The Human Development Index (HDI) is used by the UN to measure
the achievements in education, health and income based on
countries, not languages. Similarly considerations can be done for
the total fertility rate.
These two parameters generate clearly spurious results: in particular,
it is quite surprising that the Hawai Creole English in in position 2
while English (American? English? Global?). The weight of these two
parameters should be adjusted according to the their reliability.
16 de 35

Parameter 11: language use in the Internet
This parameter clearly overlaps with parameter 8 (Wikipedia).
However, the source here is a web site owned by a limited liability
company, the Miniwatts Marketing Group, not a public instance or a
foundation4.
As a result, raw data cannot be controlled: this parameter should not
be considered ‘heavy’ as the others. Now, we can test the CLB as it
is and with diﬀerent weights.
4
See: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm.17 de 35

the top 15 of the CLB as it is. . .

...and with diﬀerent weights

A ﬁrst evaluation of the CLB
Weights in the parameters are put following our analysis. Some
remarks:
1. The top ﬁve languages are left untouched by the change: English,
Spanish, French, German and Russian;
20 de 35

remarks:
2. there is a signiﬁcant change in Chinese Mandarin, which comes
position 6 from position 10, switching position with Japanese;
20 de 35

remarks:
3. some non-Western languages climb the scale: Hindi, Bengali and
Farsi show up;
20 de 35

remarks:
Farsi show up;
4. three main Scandinavian languages (Swedish, Norwegian and
Danish) are downgraded.
20 de 35

remarks:
Farsi show up;
4. three main Scandinavian languages (Swedish, Norwegian and
Danish) are downgraded.
The CLB is ﬂexible but not so user-friendly, especially for the
interpretion of the data.
20 de 35

The gravitational model
and the barometer

The world as a galaxy
The gravitational model, unlike the CLB, is qualitative. Started by
Abraam de Swaam, it uses an astrophysic metaphor:
1. languages are stars that has a power of attraction (gravity);
22 de 35

2. the higher the mass, the higher position in the CLB;
22 de 35

3. constellations are made by bilinguals, who are the connectors.
22 de 35

3. constellations are made by bilinguals, who are the connectors.
Languages are in dynamic equilibria (central/periphery).
22 de 35

The four levels
Languages are grouped by Calvet according to their power:
1. hyper-central: English; L1 speakers tend to be monolingual;
23 de 35

The four levels
2. super-central: about 10 languages: Arabic, Chinese, French, Hindi,
Malay, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Swahili; L1 speakers
monolingual or bilingual with English; in the CLB, they have good
scores in terms of vehicularity, Index Translationum, and having at
least one sovereign state;
23 de 35

The four levels
3. central: about 100 languages; L1 speakers tend to be vertically
bilingual with super-central;
23 de 35

The four levels
3. central: about 100 languages; L1 speakers tend to be vertically
bilingual with super-central;
4. peripherical languages: +5,000 languages; L1 speakers tend to be
vertically bilingual and horizontally bilingual (i.e., other peripherical
languages).
23 de 35

An example provided by Calvet
Context is Senegal:
1. hyper-central: English (only for elites);
According to the author, vertical bilingualism proceed step by step
(bottom-up).
24 de 35

Context is Senegal:
2. super-central: French;
(bottom-up).
24 de 35

Context is Senegal:
3. central: Wolof;
(bottom-up).
24 de 35

Context is Senegal:
3. central: Wolof;
4. peripherical: Serere or Diola.
(bottom-up).
24 de 35

Some remarks on the gravitational model
educational language policies make L2 speakers jump directly to
level 2 (e.g., French) or English;
25 de 35

Occitan or Piedmontese level 2 (centra) when not peripherical
language is found?
25 de 35

language is found?
in many situation, only 3 levels are needed (hyper, centre,
periphery);
25 de 35

language is found?
periphery);
no treatment of the impact of migration on bilingualism (e.g., L1
German speaking L2 English learning L2 Dutch working in the
Netherlands).
25 de 35

language is found?
periphery);
no treatment of the impact of migration on bilingualism (e.g., L1
German speaking L2 English learning L2 Dutch working in the
Netherlands).
From a theoretical point of view, more than one link are needed in the
model. I will put in dashed lines spontaneous learning while in
continuous lines programmed learning.
25 de 35

An example of complex vertical bilingualism
Context: Aboriginal languages in Quebec.
26 de 35

An example of complex horizontal/vertical bilingualism
Context: skilled migrant in the Netherlands
27 de 35

An application:
Linguistic justice in South Tyrol

A region of stable contact between three languages
South Tyrol is often considered a success case of multilingualism
management (source: 4-year Kontatto research project at the Free
Univ. of Bozen/Bolzano).
Politically part of Italy, with a complex historical background linked
with the Austrian Empire, at the border with Switzerland.
Three distinctive language groups:
1. German (majority: mainly local varieties, especially in the valleys);
2. Italian (spoken mainly in the cities of Bozen-Bolzano,
Meran-Merano and in the Bassa Atesina area);
3. Ladin (located in ‘traditional’ valleys, in particular Badia and
Gardena; oﬃcial status is lower).
29 de 35

Source: 9th UK Language Variation and Change Conference
30 de 35

Multilingualism of a prototypical L1 German there

Multilingualism of a prototypical L1 Italian there

Multilingualism of a prototypical L1 Ladin there

Application of the CLB to the gravitational model
The weight of the three languages in South Tyrol:
1. L1 Italian tend to vertical multilingualism with English (strongest
local position);
2. L1 German show to learn both Italian and English
(horizontal/vertical multilingualism);
3. Ladins are keen to acquire a richer vertical multilingualism than
the others (lowest position); very low vehicularity (i.e., L2 Ladin
speakers).
Data local for the translations (source/target) similar to the Index
Translationum should be provided to conﬁrm this analysis.
34 de 35

Thank you for your attention!
Questions? Ideas?
If not now, send them afterwards to:
F.Gobbo@uva.nl
Download and share this presentation from here:
http:/federicogobbo.name/en/2014.php
CC BY: $ C
Federico Gobbo 2014
35 de 35

Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?

Similaire à Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice? (20)

Plus de Federico Gobbo

Plus de Federico Gobbo (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Is the Calvet Language Barometer useful to measure linguistic justice?