Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:49:50.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The pragmatics of minority politics in Belgium1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

Jan Blommaert  and
Jef Verschueren
Jan Blommaert
Affiliation:
University of Ghent
Jef Verschueren
Affiliation:
Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research, University of Antwerp/Linguistics (GER) Universiteitsplein 1, B-2610 Wilrijk, Belgium
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Newspaper reports, political policy papers, and investigations by social scientists concerning issues related to the presence of a community of migrant workers in Belgium are subjected to a systematic, pragmatic analysis. The analysis reveals an eminently coherent world of beliefs and attitudes with respect to (1) perceptions of the “other,” (2) the self-perception of majority members, (3) formulations of “the problem,” and (4) proposed solutions. This world of beliefs and attitudes is shown to be centered around stable – even if vague – notions of culture, nation and state, democracy and human rights, and around related recipes for “integration” that reveal a collective psyche profoundly troubled by the very idea of diversity in society (linguistic or otherwise). Homogeneity appears to be a strict norm for average members of Belgian society, irrespective of the specific political positions they take. (Minority politics, language and ideology, pragmatics, political rhetoric, news reporting, ethnicity)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , December 1991 , pp. 503 - 531
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, Benedict. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. London: VersoGoogle Scholar
Barth, Fredrik (ed.). (1982). Ethnic groups and boundaries: The social organization of culture differences. Oslo: Universitets for laget.Google Scholar
Blommaert, Jan. (1988). Intercultural communication and objects of adaptation. IPrA Working Document 3:61–70.Google Scholar
Blommaert, Jan. (1989). Kiswahili politieke stijl. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Ghent.Google Scholar
Jan, Blommaert, & Verschueren, Jef (eds.). (1991). The pragmatics of intercultural and international communication: Selected papers from the 1987 International Pragmatics Conference (Part III) and the Ghent Symposium on Intercultural Communication.Amsterdam and Philadelphia:John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Boon, James. (1982). Other tribes other scribes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. (1982). Ce que parler veut dire. Paris: Fayard.Google Scholar
Burke, Kenneth. ([1940] 1984). The rhetoric of Hitler's battle. In Michael, S.Shapiro, (ed.), Language and politics. Oxford: Basil Black well. 61–80.Google Scholar
DeLancey, Scott. (1982). Aspect, transitivity, and viewpoint. In Hopper, P. J. (ed.), Tense-aspect. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 167–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Hondt, Paula. (1989). Integratiebeleid: een werk van lange adem [Integration policies: A longterm program]. 3 vols. Brussels: Koninklijk Commissariaat voor het Migrantenbeleid.Google Scholar
Fabian, Johannes. (1983). Time and the other: How anthropology makes its object. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. (1969). L'archéologie du savoir. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gumperz, John J., Jupp, T. C, & Roberts, Celia. (1979). Crosstalk. Southall: The National Centre for Industrial Language Training.Google Scholar
Hofstede, Geert. (1984). Culture's consequences. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Hymes, Dell. (1983). Report from an underdeveloped country: Toward linguistic competence in the United States. In Bain, Bruce (ed.), The sociogenesis of language and human conduct. New York: Plenum. 189–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mey, Jacob. (1985). Whose language? Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obermeier, K. K. (1986). Human rights: An international linguistic hyperbole. In Schweda-Nicholson, Nancy (ed.), Languages in the international perspective. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 105–14.Google Scholar
Roberts, Celia, & Sayers, Pete. (1987). Keeping the gate. In Knapp, K. et al. (eds.), Analyzing intercultural communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 111–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ronen, Dov. (1979). The quest for self-determination. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Verschueren, Jef. (1985). International news reporting: Metapragmatic metaphors and the U-2. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, Jef. (1987). Pragmatics as a theory of lingusitic adaptation. IPrA Working Document 1:1–127.Google Scholar
Verschueren, Jef. (1991). A pragmatic perspective on international communication. In Blommaert, J. & Verschueren, J. (1991). 187–210.Google Scholar