Pol is which language has the most native speakers
I will first explain the historical and socio-political background which accounts for this tripartite division of the Chicagoland Chinese community, and the corresponding linguistic divisions which correlate with them. The present South Chinatown is an outgrowth of the first Chinese community established in Chicago in the s. As in most Chinatowns in the U. As Canton city, and later nearby Hong Kong, were two of the few port cities open to Westerners in the s, Cantonese speakers from this area were among the first to make contact with Americans. Given the chaotic conditions in China at that time — famine, the Taiping Rebellion, and the increasing encroachment of the Western powers on China — Chinese from the Toisan area southwest of Canton city began to emigrate to California, first to attempt to participate in the l California gold rush, then as laborers on the western section of the transcontinental railroad in , and on farms and in industry in California. Toisan, a tiny rural district sixty miles southwest of Canton city, was the district most accessible to the sea when U.
We are searching data for your request:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
Content:
Undergraduate
These treaties and academics assign the value of linguistic pluralism in diversity. But, as this article demonstrates, major human rights courts and quasi-judicial institutions are not, in fact, prepared to force states to swallow the dramatic costs entailed by a true diversity-protecting regime.
Outside narrow exceptions or a path dependent national-political compromise, these enforcement bodies continuously allow the state actively to incentivize assimilation into the dominant culture and language of the majority. The minority can still maintain its distinct language, but only at its own cost.
The slippage between the promise of rights and their actual interpretation carries some important political and economic benefits, but the resulting legal outcome does not provide the robust protection of diversity to which lip service is paid. Importantly, the assimilationist nature of the jurisprudence is not indifferent to human rights.
However, instead of advancing maximal linguistic diversity as a pre-eminent norm, the regime that is applied by judicial bodies supports a different set of human rights: those protecting linguistic minorities from discrimination, and promoting equal access of the group to market and political institutions.
The result is a tension between two human rights values: pluralism and equality. If … the ends of men are many, and not all of them are in principle compatible with each other, then the possibility of conflict — and of tragedy — can never wholly be eliminated from human life, either personal or social.
The necessity of choosing between absolute claims is then an inescapable characteristic of the human condition. Isaiah Berlin 1. At the beginning, the whole world had one language and a common speech. But since the Tower of Babel, or at least so the story goes, languages have been scattered over the face of the whole earth. This raises a question: what is the function of language and is there a benefit to the multiplicity of languages or is diversity merely an historical accident? Human rights law seems conflicted on the answer.
Major human rights instruments and leading scholars identify two key social values of language: for individuals, language is constitutive of cultural identity we are what we speak , and for society, linguistic pluralism increases diversity.
Should this happen, injury would be borne both by the minority and by the entire society. There is, however, another and perhaps more obvious perspective on the function of language.
This function could be called communicative. Here value is assigned to the smooth operation of the market and the political state, and linguistic diversity is seen as generally imposing costs rather than benefits to society. In spite of the language of treaties and the writings of scholars, I show in this article that human rights adjudicatory bodies do not , in fact, protect language as constitutive of identity and culture, or in order to encourage diversity.
Instead it is the second approach — the communicative — that is actually advanced by these courts and quasi-judicial institutions. The former conception demands strong rights of protection, while the latter inclines toward fair terms of assimilation. Following through on the commitment of mainstream human rights treaties and scholars to protect minority language as a mode of self-expression would require making linguistic differences costless to minorities, 6 so that the economic and political opportunities open to minority language speakers would be comparable to those available to the speakers of the majority language with similar characteristics.
But, in practice, international human rights enforcement bodies are not prepared to force states to swallow the dramatic cost, financial and otherwise, associated with a robust diversity-protecting regime. In particular, they are not willing to do two things: to allocate the costs of maintaining linguistic difference to the state, and to force the state affirmatively to protect linguistic heterogeneity in the market place by imposing private costs.
In this context of a linguistic laissez - faire policy in the market, courts and quasi-judicial institutions only accommodate the language of minorities in three narrow ways. First, they provide minorities with procedural protection against irrational prejudice that is based on their language status, and they accommodate certain fundamental human rights that are not language-specific but that have an expression in language.
This protection is thin and is focused on the needs of individuals rather than groups; it has a strong due process component. Secondly, they accommodate minority languages en route to assimilation into the dominant language and culture of the state. A third and final circumstance in which courts protect minority language rights is when doing so is necessary to uphold a pre-existing political compromise between the majority and one or more minority groups.
This protection is perpetual and thick. But the scope of positive accommodation is limited and reflects politics and the specific history of the country rather than human rights; it is granted only to the minorities that were part of the original political settlement.
Outside these narrow exceptions, the human rights courts and quasi-judicial institutions continuously allow the state to incentivize assimilation into the dominant culture and language of the majority. The only time they require the state to internalize the cost of linguistic difference is as a transitory measure to assist during the acculturation of the minority. In short, human rights law puts in place strong incentives and pressures toward linguistic and cultural assimilation.
Importantly, the assimilationist character of the jurisprudence does not abandon diversity. These international human rights enforcement bodies may still privilege diversity; they are just not willing to ask the state to pay for it even if this means that some minority languages will disappear.
Similarly, the assimilationist nature of the law-in-action does not simply support statism at the expense of indifference to human rights. Given that the state is not required to distribute resources based on linguistic distinctions in the market sphere, market pressures will naturally drive society towards linguistic homogeneity. Without intervention in the market to ensure that minority language speakers find employment in significant economic markets, members of the minority who cannot communicate in the majority language might fall behind in the larger economic and political hierarchies of the state.
The human rights courts and quasi-judicial institutions ask the state to internalize some of the costs involved in transitioning these individuals into the dominant language of the state and the market. Ultimately, international courts and quasi-judicial institutions fall on the side of the latter. I selected these two institutions because they are the most significant international human rights enforcement bodies operating today. To supplement the discussion, I also briefly draw on the protection of language rights under two domestic courts: the American and Canadian Supreme Courts.
I choose these two courts because they stand at opposite poles. The relevant law in Canada the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , like US law, protects a number of negative liberties, including freedom of expression, freedom of association, natural justice, and a right against discrimination based on membership of a linguistic community.
Canadian French and English speakers have the right to use their language in some courts and legislatures, to receive federal government services in those languages, and, when numbers warrant, to have their children educated in their mother tongue.
In total, I surveyed a little short of communications and cases. But the nature of the rights provided is different. The laws that the ECtHR is supposed to enforce under the European Convention on Human Rights ECHR simply make discrimination on the basis of language in the enjoyment of one of the rights enshrined in the Convention a suspect classification.
According to the standard account of both the UNHRC and the ECtHR, the rights of minorities to use and preserve their own languages derive from two of the essential functions mentioned above: the identity-constitutive and diversity-providing natures of language.
These two functions of language also figure prominently in the writings of leading human rights academics. Given the existing legal framework, we should expect that when members of minorities submit language claims before the UNHRC, the protection that is afforded them will be robust.
Equally, we could reasonably anticipate that the ECtHR would be willing to expand Article 14 to provide positive protection for minority languages. Finally, we would assume that for both bodies, linguistic diversity will be the primary concern and the motivation for protection.
The reality is, however, quite different. Despite large differences in the law on the books, courts in these jurisdictions converge in practice on a common standard for the protection of minority language speakers. I will now turn to how these interests emerge in case law. While I will provide only one or two examples for each category of protection, these cases and communications are exemplary of decision-making by the UNHRC and the ECtHR further examples are referred to in the footnotes.
In the first category, courts accommodate a minority language when doing so is necessary to promote another universally recognized human right — for example, the procedural right to a fair trial.
Consider, for example, Guesdon v. France , 33 a communication that came before the UNHRC and that dealt with a Breton-speaking person who was charged in French criminal proceedings. In the case, the defendant and his witnesses demanded to give evidence in Breton a Celtic language very different from French with the assist ance of an interpreter paid by the state. But the French court denied this request, noting that the defendant and his witnesses were able to speak fluent French.
But the UNHRC declined to consider the Article 27 allegation and instead decided the case solely on the grounds of Article 14, structuring the language component as a subset of the procedural guarantee. The decision read:. The right to a fair trial and the right to speak a minority language afford very different kinds of protections to linguistic minorities. The right to a fair trial protects minority speakers only insofar as is necessary to guarantee due process.
The test for what constitutes an adequate level of linguistic proficiency is pragmatic; fairness dictates only that an accused must understand the charges against him. When the accused cannot do so unaided, a translator must be provided. But the accused does not have a right to choose the language in which he will defend himself or in which the trial will be held. This standard ties language to the value of instrumental communication alone.
The fact that protected minorities may be bilingual — as many are — is irrelevant to Article 27 protection. Guesdon is not an isolated decision; the Human Rights Committee followed the same reasoning in multiple other communications.
Italy decision found a violation of the right to a fair trial when the national court did not provide an interpreter for an accused who had no skill in the majority language. Protection ends the moment an accused overcomes the language barrier and assimilation into the majority language has begun. The Court repeated this position in numerous other cases.
Interestingly, the international standard linking the protection of a minority language to due process also aligns with decisions by American courts. This is unexpected; while Article 27 ICCPR provides a seemingly absolute right to the use of minority languages and Article 14 ECHR carries at least the potential of a language right, US law recognizes no substantive language entitlements.
In United States of America ex rel. Rogelio Nieves Negron v. A second circumstance in which human rights courts and other judicial bodies offer protection to minority languages is when doing so is necessary to assist minorities in their efforts to acquire the dominant language and culture. Here the courts accommodate the minority language, but only as a way to its elimination. The interest in language is purely assimilationist and transitional in nature.
Let us look at the treatment by the ECtHR of minority languages and their speakers in public schools. The petitioners argued that Belgium implicitly violated the rights of French-speaking minority parents by offering education in state-financed schools in Dutch only, while also withdrawing subsidies from private schools operating in French in that region.
In the decision, the Grand Chamber interpreted the right to education under Article 2 of the First Protocol to mean education in the majority language or languages, as the case may be.
In subsequent cases, the ECtHR elaborated further on the terms of negative linguistic freedom in school settings. In Cyprus v. More recently, the Catan and Others v. Moldova and Russia decision emphasized that the state cannot go out of its way to interfere with the operation of private schools in the minority language.
At the same time that the ECtHR protects a private zone of negative linguistic freedom for those students who opt out of public education, it also requires the state to provide transitional positive support for those minority students who do seek to assimilate into the dominant language and cultural practices in schools. Croatia , 56 a case brought by Roma primary school students.
These petitioners asked to integrate into public-school classes in Croatia that were taught in Croatian the dominant language. But they were barred from joining these classes, as they failed to pass entry exams conducted in Croatian.
Once again, the regime developed by the ECtHR converges with the level of protection offered by the American Supreme Court in surprising ways. In Lau v. The case concerned the failure of the San Francisco school system to provide English language instruction, or other adequate instructional procedures, to approximately 1, students of Chinese ancestry who did not speak English and were thus unable meaningfully to participate in the public educational programme.
Polish language
In addition, conversation, reading, and composition courses are regularly offered, as are language courses for native speakers and literature, culture, and film courses taught in the target language. Students can also intern abroad for the summer through programs offered by the Educational Programmes Abroad EPA or study abroad for a semester, summer, or year through the Center for Education Abroad. The following are MLC courses that teach a language or require proficiency in the target language. For courses not requiring language proficiency, please see our courses in English page. Why study a language? A language sequence makes a great humanities cluster see our clusters overview page.
Speaking With a Single Tongue
In jungle on the Pacific island of Bougainville, a man from the village of Rotokas was excitedly pointing out the most beautiful birdsong I had ever heard. It consisted of silver-clear whistled tones and trills, grouped in slowly rising phrases of two or three notes, each phrase different from the next. I never succeeded in glimpsing the singer, nor have any of the other ornithologists who have subsequently visited Bougainville and listened spellbound to its song. The only consonant sounds in those names are k, p, r, and v. Later I learned that the Rotokas language has only six consonant sounds, the fewest of any known language in the world. English, by comparison, has 24, while other languages have 80 or more. Somehow the people of Rotokas, living in a tropical rain forest on one of the highest mountains of the southwest Pacific, have managed to build a rich vocabulary and communicate clearly while relying on fewer basic sounds than any other people. The Rotokas language is just one of 18 languages spoken on an island roughly three-quarters the size of Connecticut. At last count it was spoken by only 4, people, and the number is declining. With its vanishing, a 30,year history of human communication and cultural development is coming to an end.
CHINESE LANGUAGE USE IN CHICAGO
These treaties and academics assign the value of linguistic pluralism in diversity. But, as this article demonstrates, major human rights courts and quasi-judicial institutions are not, in fact, prepared to force states to swallow the dramatic costs entailed by a true diversity-protecting regime. Outside narrow exceptions or a path dependent national-political compromise, these enforcement bodies continuously allow the state actively to incentivize assimilation into the dominant culture and language of the majority. The minority can still maintain its distinct language, but only at its own cost.
German as a Foreign Language
Latin alphabet Polish variant. Polish Language Council. Polish-speakers, sometimes referred to as Poles , use the language in a consistent manner throughout most of Poland. Despite pressure of non-Polish administrators residing in Poland, who have tried to suppress the language numerous times, a rich literature has been created over centuries and the language is currently the largest in terms of speakers of various West Slavic languages. It is the third most widely spoken Slavic language, only being surpassed by Russian and Ukrainian.
German as a Foreign Language
It is the most common Western Slavic language and the second Slavic language , after Russian. Polish has been an important language in Central and Eastern Europe. Polish is now spoken by over It is also spoken as a second language in western parts of Belarus , Lithuania and Ukraine. Because of emigration from Poland during different times, millions of Polish-speakers can be found in Australia , Brazil , Canada , United Kingdom , United States and elsewhere. There are over 50 million speakers around the world.
University of Florida
Do you know Pol in Marathi? How to use Pol in Marathi and how to say Pol in Marathi? How to write in Marathi?
Brenda H. Ten factors contributed to recovering significant portions of these domains for written Natqgu over a twenty year period: a new orthography, literacy courses led by a national, sufficient vernacular literacy materials, vernacular literacy classes in two primary schools, a desire to learn song lyrics, later island-wide involvement of teachers and the distribution of literacy materials to their schools, the addressing of perceived language inferiority, promoters of written Natqgu in spheres of influence, computer technology, and friendly competition to gain reading fluency. A model incorporating analogous factors could contribute to language conservation efforts elsewhere in the world. The use of written Natqgu can be expected to continue on the island, since the domains that have been established for its use represent three major arenas of Santa Cruz society.
In recent years, Russia has become an even larger global influence on politics, the economy, security, and international trade. Understanding the language and culture of Russia has become increasingly important, and the value of knowledge and skills in this area is anticipated to continue to grow. This Slavic language is growing in importance and in value as the political and economic dynamics of Russia and the region are evolving. Russian is one of the five official languages of the United Nations and has more than million speakers around the world. The U. State Department has deemed Russian to be a "critical language" and has many programs to encourage students to join this needed area of study.
Polish [a] is a West Slavic language of the Lechitic group, written in Latin script. In addition to being the official language of Poland, it is also used by Polish minorities in other countries. There are over 50 million [1] [2] Polish speakers around the world — it is the sixth-most-spoken language of the European Union. The letters x, q and v are at times included in the extended letter alphabet, however, these are not used in native words.
There are no comments yet.