Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Mapping the language ideologies of organisational members: a corpus linguistic investigation of the United Nations’ General Debates (1970–2016)

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Language Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Supranational and international organisations have long experienced difficulties in implementing multilingual policies, and this is, in part, due to a lack of activism on language matters by their membership (McEntee-Atalianis forthcoming; Kruse and Ammon, in: Chua (ed) Unintended language planning in a globalising world: multiple levels of players at work, De Gruyter Open, Berlin, pp 39–56, 2018). The aim of this paper is not only to highlight the importance of investigating language ideology within the field of organisational language policy, but also to scrutinise the language ideologies particular to an influential body of institutional members. Using the United Nations as a site of exploration, and the UN General Debates Corpus (Mikhaylov et al. in Res Politics 4(2):1–9, 2017) as a dataset, this paper traces if and how issues of language have preoccupied the deliberations and work of UN member states over the course of 46 years, and if these discussions align with organisational policy. Using corpus linguistics, the paper maps the ideological landscape and language policy discourses across time, identifying a paucity of discussion over almost five decades. The paper argues that attention to the absence of references to language problems/language policy in the organisation is just as important as an exploration of language problems themselves. If organisations wish to make changes to language policies, and/or prioritise policy implementation, they would do well to attend more closely to the language ideologies of their membership and/or to reasons for their apparent inattention to language issues.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The Secretariat constitutes the executive of the UN, headed by the Secretary-General. Its role is to set the agenda for the organisation’s decision-making bodies (in New York this includes: the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council and the Security Council) and to implement decisions arising from the deliberations of Member States. The Secretariat is organised into departments/offices of responsibility. Issues of multilingualism are predominantly dealt with by the Department for General Assembly and Conference Management, under the stewardship of the Under-Secretary-General, in their capacity as ‘Coordinator for Multilingualism’. Financial support for multilingualism is provided by Member States and any changes to policy have to be ratified by Member States.

  2. e.g. Compare the different policy decisions made by the UN and the EU.

  3. Article 111 of the UN Charter states: “Chinese, French, Russian, English, and Spanish texts are equally authentic.”

  4. Working languages are those used for internal operations and communication among staff. English and French are the working languages of the Secretariat at Headquarters in New York. Official languages are the languages used for the circulation of official UN documents and are also supported via interpretation in plenary. Some of the official languages are also working languages in Regional Commissions.

  5. E.g. The UN’s 63 regional Information Centres (ICs) operate in five of the six official languages (excluding Chinese) in addition to 97 local languages when necessary. Within countries, UN missions ‘may’ provide information and support in local languages.

References

  • Ajsic, A., & McGroarty, M. (2015). Mapping language ideologies. In F. M. Hult & D. C. Johnson (Eds.), Research methods in language policy and planning: A practical guide (pp. 181–192). Oxford: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ammon, U. (2006). Language conflicts in the European Union: On finding a politically acceptable and practicable solution for EU institutions that satisfies diverging interests. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(3), 319–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ammon, U. (2012). Language policy in the European Union (EU). In B. Spolsky (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of language policy (pp. 570–591). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, P. (2006). Using corpora in discourse analysis. London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbier, J.-C. (2018). The myth of English as a common language in the European Union (EU) and some of its political consequences. In M. Gazzola, T. Templin, & B.-A. Wickström (Eds.), Language policy and linguistic justice (pp. 209–229). Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blommaert, J. (1999). The debate is open. In J. Blommaert (Ed.), Language ideological debates (pp. 1–38). Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonacina-Pugh, F. (2012). Researching ‘practiced language policies:’ Insights from conversation analysis. Language Policy, 11(3), 213–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudreau, A., & Dubois, L. (2007). Français, acadien, acadjonne: Competing discourses on language preservation along the shores of the Baie Sainte-Marie. In M. Heller & A. Duchêne (Eds.), Discourses of endangerment: Ideology and interest in the defence of languages (pp. 99–120). London: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., Clarke, V., Hayfield, N., & Terry, G. (2019). Thematic analysis. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research methods in health social sciences (pp. 843–860). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cogo, A., & Jenkins, J. (2010). English as a lingua franca in Europe: A mismatch between policy and practice. European Journal of Language Policy, 2(2), 271–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coupland, N., & Jaworski, A. (2004). Sociolinguistic perspectives on metalanguage: Reflexivity, evaluation and ideology. In A. Jaworski, N. Coupland, & D. Galasinski (Eds.), Metalanguage: Social and ideological perspectives (pp. 15–51). Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duguid, A., & Partington, A. (2018). Absence. You don’t know what you’re missing. Or do you? In C. Taylor & A. I. March (Eds.), Corpus approaches to discourse (pp. 38–51). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fidrmuc, J., & Ginsburgh, V. (2007). Languages in the European Union: The quest for equality and cost. European Economic Review, 51, 1351–1369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzsimmons-Doolan, S. (2014). Using lexical variables to identify language ideologies in a policy corpus. Corpora, 9(1), 57–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzsimmons-Doolan, S. (2019). Language ideologies of institutional language policy: Exploring variability by language policy register. Language Policy, 18(2), 169–189.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazzola, M. (2006). Managing multilingualism in the European Union: Language policy evaluation for the European Parliament. Language Policy, 5(4), 393–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazzola, M. (2016). Multilingual communication for whom? Language policy and fairness in the European Union, European Union Politics, 17(4), 546–569.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazzola, M., Torsten, T., & McEntee-Atalianis, L. J. (2019). Measuring diversity in multilingual communication. Social Indicators Research, 147(2), 545–566.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koskinen, K. (2013). Social media and the institutional illusions of EU communication. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 23(1), 80–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kriszán, A., & Erkkilä, T. (2014). Multilingualism amongst Brussels-based civil servants and lobbyists: perceptions and practices. Language Policy, 13(3), 201–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruse, J., & Ammon, U. (2018). The language planning and policy for the European Union and its failures. In C. S. K. Chua (Ed.), Unintended language planning in a globalising world: Multiple levels of players at work (pp. 39–56). Berlin: De Gruyter Open.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krzyżanowski, M., & Wodak, R. (2010). Hegemonic multilingualism in/of the EU institutions: An inside-outside perspective on European language policies and practices. In C. Hülmbauer, E. Vetter, & H. Böhringer (Eds.), Mehrsprachigkeit aus der Perspektive zweier EU-Projekte DYLAN meets LINEE (pp. 115–133). Frankfurt: Peter Lang GmbH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts, G. (2001). A failure to comply with the EU language policy: A study of the Council archives. Multilingua, 20(3), 221–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lo Bianco, J. (2005). Including discourse in language planning theory. In P. Bruthiaux, D. Atkinson, W. G. Eggington, W. Grabe, & V. Ramanathan (Eds.), Directions in applied linguistics (pp. 255–264). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • McEntee-Atalianis, L. J. (2006). ‘Geostrategies of interlingualism’: Language policy and practice in the international maritime Organisation, London, UK. Current Issues in Language Planning, 7(2&3), 341–358.

    Google Scholar 

  • McEntee-Atalianis, L. J. (2015). Language policy and planning in international organisations. In U. Jessner-Schmid & C. J. Kramsch (Eds.), The Multilingual Challenge: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives (pp. 295–322). Trends in applied linguistics 16. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • McEntee-Atalianis, L. (2016). A network model of language policy and planning: The United Nations as a case study. Language Problems and Language Planning, 40(2), 187–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • McEntee-Atalianis, L. J. (forthcoming). Chapter 30: International & supranational organisations. In F. Grin, L. Cardinal & K. Heugh (Eds.), The routledge handbook of language policy and planning. Abingdon: Routledge.

  • Mikhaylov, S. J., Baturo, A., & Dasandi, N. (2017). Understanding state preferences with text as data: introducing the UN General Debate Corpus. Research and Politics, 4(2), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nekvapil, J., & Sherman, T. (2015). An introduction: Language management theory in language policy and planning. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 232, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neustupný, J. V. (1994). Problems of English contact discourse and language planning. In T. Kandiah & J. Kwan-Terry (Eds.), English and language planning (pp. 50–69). Singapore: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partington, A. (2004). Corpora and discourse, a most congruous beast. In A. Partington, J. Morley, & L. Haarman (Eds.), Corpora and discourse (pp. 11–20). Bern: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partington, A. (2010). Modern diachronic corpus-assisted discourse studies (MD-CADS) on UK newspapers: An overview of the project. Corpora, 5(2), 83–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillipson, R. (2003). English-only Europe? Challenging language policy. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillipson, R. (2008). The new linguistic imperial order: English as an EU lingua franca or lingua frankensteinia? Journal of Irish and Scottish Studies, 1(2), 189–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piron, C. (1980). Problèmes de communication linguistique au Nations Unies et dans les organiations apparentées. Language Problems and Language Planning, 4(3), 224–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quell, C. (1997). Language choice in multilingual institutions: A case study at the European Commission with particular reference to the role of English, French, and German as working languages. Multilingua, 16(1), 57–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricento, T. (2006). Language policy: Theory and practice – An Introduction. In Thomas Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 3–9). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rychlý, P. (2008). A lexicographer-friendly association score. In Proceedings of recent advances in slavonic natural language processing, RASLAN 6–9.

  • Silverstein, M. (1979). Language structure and linguistic ideology. In P. R. Clyne, W. F. Hanks, & C. L. Hofbauer (Eds.), The elements: A Parasession on lingusitic units and levels (pp. 193–247). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spitulnik, D. (1998). Mediating unity and diversity. The production of language ideologies in Zambian broadcasting. In B. B. Schieffelin, K. A. Woolard, & P. V. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideologies. Practice and theory (pp. 163–188). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spolsky, B. (2009). Language management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spolsky, B. (2019). A modified and enriched theory of language policy (and management). Language Policy, 18(3), 323–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stubbs, M. (1996). Text and corpus analysis: Computer-assisted studies of language and culture. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Subtirelu, N. C. (2013). ‘English… it’s part of our blood’: Ideologies of language and nation in United States Congressional discourse. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 17(1), 37–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Els, T. (2005). Multilingualism in the European Union. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 15(3), 263–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Leeuwen, T. (2004). Metalanguage in social life. In A. Jaworski, N. Coupland, & D. Galasinski (Eds.), Metalanguage: Social and ideological perspectives (pp. 107–130). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Parijs, P. (2013). Linguistic Justice for Europe and the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vessey, R. (2016). Language and Canadian media: Representations, ideologies, policies. London: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watts, R. J. (1999). The ideology of dialect in Switzerland. In J. Blommaert (Ed.), Language ideological debates (pp. 67–103). Berlin: de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolard, K. A. (1998). Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In B. B. Schieffelin, K. A. Woolard, & P. V. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideologies. Practice and theory (pp. 3–50). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S. (2009). The elephant in the room: Language issues in the European Union. European Journal of Language Policy, 1(2), 92–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S. (2016). Language policy and language planning: From nationalism to globalisation (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xabier, A. (2008). Respecting linguistic diversity in the European Union. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Birkbeck, University of London, Malet St, Bloomsbury, London, WC1E 7HX, UK

    Lisa McEntee-Atalianis & Rachelle Vessey

Authors
  1. Lisa McEntee-Atalianis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rachelle Vessey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa McEntee-Atalianis.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Year

Theme

Language

Member state

1970

Calling for recognition of languages as official/working language at the UN

Arabic

Syrian Arabic Republic

1970

Appreciation of work of the language services

n/a

Gambia

1972

Appreciation of support for Arabic as a UN language

Arabic

Libya

1974

Appreciation of introduction & support for Arabic as a UN language

Arabic

Libya

1974

Appreciation of introduction & support for Arabic as a UN language

Arabic

Tunisia

1976

Calling for Recognition of Languages as official/working language at the UN

Portuguese

Portugal

1977

Calling for recognition of languages as official/working language at the UN

Portuguese

Portugal

1980

Calls for greater geo-political representation of Spanish speakers in Secretariat + for protection of Spanish

Spanish

Ecuador

1980

Calling for recognition of languages as official/working language at the UN

Portuguese

Portugal

1983

Appreciation of work of the language services

n/a

Senegal

1984

Appreciation of work of the language services

Bengali/Bangla

Bangladesh

1987

Recognition of economic constraints but need for protection and preservation of multilingualism within the UN

Multilingualism

France

1988

Calling for recognition of languages as official/working language at the UN

Portuguese

Portugal

1989

Praise—40th anniversary of universal declaration of human rights—translated into 8 languages—noted as significant event

n/a

Benin

1990

Calling for recognition of languages as official/working language at the UN

Portuguese

Portugal

1995

Recognition of economic constraints but need for protection and preservation of multilingualism within the UN

Multilingualism

Monaco

1995

Calling on members in Nairobi to use conference services

n/a

Kenya

1996

Recognition of economic constraints but need for protection and preservation of multilingualism within the UN

Multilingualism

France

1999

Expressing desire to work in own language (French) in UN (bodies + agencies)

French

Niger

2000

Appreciation of work of the language services

n/a

Congo

2001

Recognition of economic constraints but need for protection and preservation of multilingualism within the UN

Multilingualism

Monaco

2002

Appreciation of work of the language services

n/a

Suriname

2008

Calling for recognition of languages as official/working language at the UN

Portuguese

Portugal

2009

Calling for recognition of languages as official/working language at the UN

Bengali/Bangla

Bangladesh

2009

Calling for recognition of languages as official/working language at the UN

Portuguese

Portugal

2010

Calling for recognition of languages as official/working language at the UN

Bengali/Bangla

Bangladesh

2010

International mother language day

n/a

Bangladesh

2011

Calling for recognition of languages as official/working language at the UN

Bengali/Bangla

Bangladesh

2011

Appreciation of work of the language services

n/a

Denmark

2011

International mother language day

n/a

Bangladesh

2012

Calling for recognition of languages as official/working language at the UN

Bengali/Bangla

Bangladesh

2012

Calling for recognition of languages as official/working language at the UN

Portuguese

Portugal

2012

Appreciation of work of the language services

n/a

Dominica

2013

Calling for recognition of languages as official/working language at the UN

Bengali/Bangla

Bangladesh

2013

Calling for recognition of languages as official/working language at the UN

Portuguese

Cape Verde

2013

Calling for Recognition of Languages as official/working language at the UN

Portuguese

Portugal

2013

Recognition of economic constraints but need for protection and preservation of multilingualism within the UN

Multilingualism

Spain

2013

International mother language day

n/a

Bangladesh

2014

Calls for greater geo-political representation of Spanish speakers in Secretariat + for protection of Spanish

Spanish

Spain

2014

Calling for recognition of languages as official/working language at the UN

Portuguese

Portugal

2014

International mother language day

n/a

Bangladesh

2015

Calling for recognition of languages as official/working language at the UN

Portuguese

Portugal

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McEntee-Atalianis, L., Vessey, R. Mapping the language ideologies of organisational members: a corpus linguistic investigation of the United Nations’ General Debates (1970–2016). Lang Policy 19, 549–573 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-020-09542-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-020-09542-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation