Dag F. Simonsen

Over the fence ? and into English? Reflections on adolescents, academics, linguistic development and language policy in Norway in the early 2000s

Introduction

Over the fence ? and into english? reflections on adolescents, academics, linguistic development and language policy in norway in the early 2000s. Explores English language policy, linguistic development & domain loss in Norway (2000s). Compares English use by adolescents vs. academics, suggesting policies for parallel language use.

Abstract

After a discussion of recent language-policy developments in the Scandinavian countries, and of the domain loss theory saying English may displace Scandinavian languages in crucial sectors of society, a model is sketched that links the progress of English to people?s free choices, presupposing (1) bilingualism in the national language and English, (2) arenas where real choices are possible and (3) motives for preferring English. This model is applied to youth language and academic language in Norway, on the basis of recent research. In both cases, there has been an increase in people?s competence in English as well as in the number of arenas and motives for using English. As for the adolescents, in spite of the strongly positive symbolic value they ascribe to English, there are few indications that they are really dropping Norwegian, whereas academics tend to use English more, both in publishing and in other discipline-related activities. Finally the author reflects upon the consequences that should be drawn in relation to language policy. Youth marks a period of freedom, and Norwegian adolescents? use of language doesn?t necessarily forebode a transition into English, and so should be stimulated rather than limited. Contrary to this, academic language use is already governed by regulations, and may be further regulated, if necessary by law, so as to promote parallel use of Norwegian and English at the universities.

Review

The paper "Over the fence? and into English? Reflections on adolescents, academics, linguistic development and language policy in Norway in the early 2000s" offers a timely and insightful examination of the evolving linguistic landscape in Norway, particularly concerning the influence of English. Building upon the "domain loss" theory and recent language-policy discussions in Scandinavia, the author proposes a "free choice" model to understand English's progress, predicated on bilingualism, available arenas, and motives for preference. This theoretical framework is then adeptly applied to two crucial societal groups: adolescents and academics, providing a nuanced perspective on their language use and competence in English. The research effectively demonstrates an increase in English competence, arenas, and motives for its use across both populations. While adolescents show a strong positive symbolic association with English, the findings suggest they are not abandoning Norwegian, advocating for stimulating their language use rather than limiting it. In contrast, academics are shown to be integrating English more deeply into publishing and disciplinary activities. The paper's strength lies in its differentiated policy recommendations: encouraging adolescent linguistic freedom while proposing potential regulation, even legal, to promote parallel use of Norwegian and English within academia. This distinction offers a pragmatic and thoughtful approach to language policy, recognizing the unique dynamics of each group. While the abstract promises a compelling analysis, a full review would benefit from further detail on the specific "recent research" underpinning these claims, especially regarding the methodological approaches used to assess competence, choices, and motives among adolescents and academics. Clarification on the exact nature of the "arenas where real choices are possible" would also strengthen the theoretical model. Despite these minor points for potential elaboration in the full paper, this work presents a highly relevant and well-argued contribution to the field of sociolinguistics and language policy. Its balanced perspective on the complexities of linguistic development in the face of globalization makes it a valuable read for scholars and policymakers alike.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.