Linguistic diversity in the UK and Ireland
Linguistic diversity in the UK and Ireland
复制标题
英国和爱尔兰的语言多样性
DOI：
10.1007/978-1-137-28572-0_3
复制
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Luke McDonagh
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Luke McDonagh
本章考察了英国和爱尔兰共和国在语言多样性方面的法律，特别侧重于提供口译和笔译等语言服务。2虽然英语仍然是主要语言，但在这两个州内都有大量的少数民族语言（Barthel 2000：43）。然而，正如本章所指出的，虽然少数民族语言的范围多种多样，但在联合王国或爱尔兰共和国，每种语言的法律的地位并不平等（Dunbar 2006：198; McCleod 1998：1; Sutherland 2000：200）。事实上，有两种截然不同的法律的框架。所使用的法律的框架取决于该语言福尔斯属于哪一类。一种模式涵盖了“土著”或“区域”少数民族语言的类别，如威尔士的凯尔特语、苏格兰盖尔语和爱尔兰语。[4]另一个框架一般包括移民的语言，为了本章的目的，这些语言被描述为“移民”语言。然而，在某种程度上，土著人和移民这两个词不能令人满意是可以理解的。例如，Barclay指出，不清楚一种语言必须在一个领土上存在多久才能被称为土著语言（2000：21）。因此，使用土著和移民这两个词时有些战战兢兢，使用这些词纯粹是为了批评这种区分是否必要和合理。
This chapter examines the law in the area of linguistic diversity in the UK and the Republic of Ireland, ¹ with particular focus on the provision of language services such as interpretation and translation. 2 While English remains the dominant language, there are a vast number of minority languages spoken within both states (Barbour 2000: 43). However, as noted over the course of this chapter, while there is a diverse range of minority languages, the legal status of each language is not equal in either the UK or the Republic of Ireland (Dunbar 2006: 198; McCleod 1998: 1; Sutherland 2000: 200). In fact, there are two distinct legal frameworks. The legal framework to be used depends upon the category the language falls into. One model covers the category of'indigenous' or'regional'minority languages, such as the Celtic languages of Welsh, Scots-Gaelic and Irish. 4 The other framework generally covers the languages of immigrants, and for the purpose of this chapter these languages are described as' immigrant'languages. However, to some extent it is arguable that the terms indigenous and immigrant are unsatisfactory. For instance, Barbour has noted that it is unclear how long a language must be present in a territory before it is described as indigenous (2000: 21). Hence, the terms indigenous and immigrant are used with some trepidation and these terms are used purely for the purposes of offering a critique on whether such a distinction is necessary and justifiable.