Relatively spoken languages within the region with presence on the Internet: Alsatian and Catalan. They both enjoy a balanced deployment of

In document Linguistic and Cultural Diversity in Cyberspace (Page 169-173)

Exploring the Status of Languages of France on the Internet:

E) Relatively spoken languages within the region with presence on the Internet: Alsatian and Catalan. They both enjoy a balanced deployment of

stakeholders, although with very different realities. While for Alsatian, most references are proper to the community, they are alien to the Catalan (coming from Spanish Catalonia). Although local government and academic support are present and a citizen momentum arises, it may be that the activity carried out by Catalonia is largely sufficient to cover the needs of the Catalan speakers from the North and inhibit other local initiatives.

Conclusion

These are the first promising results for a field that has not yet been systematically explored. A later stage would be desirable to create an open clearinghouse where players can record their work and which is organized to promote dialogue between actors from different languages of France.

This approach should be applicable to other countries that are also experiencing a wide variety of “minority” languages such as Germany Spain, Italy or Russia.

General Conclusion

Both methodological approaches proposed in a field characterized by a prolonged crisis allow to partially overcome the existing gaps in information about the presence of languages on the Internet and make an original contribution to the subject. There is a reasonable likelihood that they can be adapted without much change to other languages than French and the languages of France.

Web References

1. Observatório da Língua Portuguesa: http://observatorio-lp.sapo.pt/pt.

2. Union Latine, “Étude langues et cyberespace”: http://dtil.unilat.org/

LI/2007/index_fr.htm.

3. FUNREDES, Observatoire des langues et cultures dans l’Internet:

http://funredes.org/lc.

4. Summer Institute of Linguistics, “Ethnologue: Languages of the World”:

http://www.sil.org/ethnologue.

5. CIRAL, Centre International de Recherche en Aménagement Linguistique de l’Université de Laval, Québec: http://www.ciral.ulaval.

ca.

6. ALIS/ISOC, Palmarés de la Toile (1997) http://alis.isoc.org/palmares.

html.

References

1. Albuquerque, A., Esperança, J. P. (2010). El valor económico del portugués: lengua de conocimiento con influencia global. http://

www.realinstitutoelcano.org/wps/portal/rielcano/contenido?WCM_

G LO B A L _ C O N T E X T = / e l c a n o / e l c a n o _ e s / z o n a s _ e s / lengua+y+cultura/ari127-2010.

2. Barbara, W. (2000). What global language, The Atlantic Monthly 286: 5, pp. 52-66.

3. Calvet, L. J. (2002). Le marché aux langues. Paris. Plon.

4. Calvet, L. J. (2012). Poids des langues (Baromètre Calvet). http://

wikilf.culture.fr/barometre2012/.

5. ConseilsMarketing (2010). Etude sur les blogueurs francophones.

http://www.conseilsmarketing.com/e-marketing/resulats-de-letude-sur-les-blogueurs-francophones

6. Crystal, D. (1997). English as a global language, Cambridge University Press

7. Crystal, D. (2000). Language Death, Cambridge University Press.

8. Crystal, D. (2006). Language and the Internet, 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press, (ISBN-13: 9780521868594 | ISBN-10: 0521868599).

9. DGLFF (2011). Fiche repères: Le numérique au service de la langue française et des langues de France. http://www.dglflf.culture.gouv.fr/

publications/Reperes12_Numerique.pdf.

10. DGLFF (2013). Rapport au Parlement sur l’emploi de la langue française, 2013. http://www.dglflf.culture.gouv.fr/publications/

Reference13_Synthese%20du%20Rapport%20au%20Parlement%20 sur%20l%27emploi%20de%20la%20langue%20fran%C3%A7aise.pdf.

11. Diki-Kidiri, M. (2007). Comment assurer la présence d’une langue dans le cyberspace? UNESCO-Union latine. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/

images/0014/001497/149786f.pdf.

12. European Commission (2011). Flash Eurobarometer: User Preferences On Line. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/flash/fl_313_en.pdf.

13. European Union (2012). Special Eurobarometer 386 Europeans and their Languages Report. http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/

ebs/ebs_386_en.pdf.

14. Franchini, P. (2013). Le français sur l’Internet, réalisé pour la Sous-direction de la diversité linguistique et du français du Ministère français des Affaires étrangères.

15. Gomes, D., Silva, M. J. (2005). Characterizing a National Community Web. http://xldb.fc.ul.pt/daniel/gomesCharacterizing.pdf.

16. Graddol, D. (1997). The Future of English? British Council. http://

www.britishcouncil.org/learning-elt-future.pdf.

17. Graddol, D. (2006). English Next, British Council. http://www.

britishcouncil.org/learning-research-english-next.pdf.

18. Grefenstette, G. & Nioche, J. (2001). Estimation of English and non-English Language use on the WWW. Technical report from Xerox Corporation Center Europe. http://arxiv.org/ftp/cs/

papers/0006/0006032.pdf.

19. ITU (2010). World Telecommunication/ICT Development Report 2010 – Monitoring the WSIS Targets. A mid-term review, Target 9 (content), pp. 175-192, 2010. http://www.itu.int/pub/D-IND-WTDR-2010.

20. MAAYA (2012). Net.Lang : Réussir le cyberespace multilingue, C&F Edition. http://net-lang.net/

21. Maurais, J., Morris, M. (eds.) (2003). Languages in a globalizing world, Cambridge University Press.

22. Millan, J. A. (2005). La lengua en el medio digital: un reto político.

http://jamillan.com/lenmedi.htm.

23. OIF (2001). Trois espaces linguistiques face aux défis de la mondialisation.

Paris, Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie.

24. OIF (2010). La langue française dans le monde, édition 2010.

Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie, Nathan.

25. Paolillo, J., Pimienta, D., Prado, D. et al. (2005). Mesurer la diversité linguistique dans l’Internet, UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/

images/0014/001421/142186f.pdf.

26. Pereira, J. P. (2011). O Google quer um mundo em que todos se entendam. http://publico.pt/Tecnologia/o-google-quer-um-mundo-em-que-todos-se-entendam_1489868?all=1.

27. Pierre, J. (2007). La langue au cœur du numérique, les enjeux culturels des technologies de la langue, DGLFLF.

28. Pimienta D. (2001). Quel espace reste-t-il dans l’Internet, hors la langue anglaise et la culture “made in USA” ?, dans “ Nord et Sud numériques”, Les Cahiers du Numériques, Vol 2, No 3/4 Hermès, Numéro spécial sur la fracture numérique.

29. Pimienta, D. (2011). Chapter 4, Linguistic Content, in: Making The Web More Effective For Supporting Economic And Social Development, Word Wide Web Foundation.

30. Pimienta, D., Prado, D., Blanco, A. (2009). Douze ans de mesure de la diversité linguistique dans l’Internet: bilan et perspectives, UNESCO.

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001870/187016f.pdf.

31. Prado, D., Pimienta, D., Lemoulinier, A. (2010). Diversité linguistique et cyberespace : état de l’art, enjeux et opportunités, Cosmopolis.

http://agora.qc.ca/cosmopolis.nsf/Articles/no2010_1_Diversite_

linguistique_et_cyberespace___etat_de_l?OpenDocument.

32. Suzuki, I., Mikami, Y. et al. (2002). A Language and Character Set Determination Method based on N-gram Statistics, ACM Trans. on Asian Language Information Processing, Vol 1 N3, pp. 270-279.

33. Union Latine (2010). Présence, poids et valeur des langues romanes dans la société de la connaissance, actes de la journée d’étude du 30 avril 2010 sous la direction de Daniel Prado.

Tjeerd DE GRAAF Senior Research Fellow, Mercator Centre,

Fryske Academy (Leeuwarden, Netherlands)

In document Linguistic and Cultural Diversity in Cyberspace (Page 169-173)

Related documents