This chapter considers language standardization from a minority language perspective. Processes and underlying principles of evaluative frameworks in minoritized languages are described from a historical and contemporary perspective. Trends in the standardization of minority languages are outlined, focusing on the case of the Irish language. It is contended that models of language excellence in many minority situations are being restructured. This is due to the opportunities for engagement with, and evaluation of, new forms of variation that have resulted from generations of language shift and revitalization. It is also due to the changing relationship between self and society in the context of Late Modernity, where social actors are increasingly agentive in deciding what is right and wrong for themselves. Using Irish as an illustrative example, it is shown that models of legitimate, authoritative and authentic language usage are constantly available for renegotiation, and perhaps especially in minority contexts. Results are described from two attitudinal projects with users of Irish, one with teenagers from the Irish-speaking communities of the Gaeltacht and the other with prospective ‘New Speaker’ teachers of Irish. Ultimately, the chapter speaks to shifting language evaluative dynamics in minority languages as communities adapt to their minoritized status within the fluid sociolinguistic arrangements that characterize Late Modernity.

Language standardization ‘from above’ occurs in situations in which language authorities seek to disseminate a standardized variety across a speech and writing community. Hence, the crucial aspect of language standardization ‘from above’ is implementation, in Haugen’s terminology. In the history of many European languages, standardization ‘from above’ is a Late Modern phenomenon, closely tied to the rise of standard language ideology in the eighteenth century. In this chapter, we first define language standardization ‘from above’, situating it in the sociohistorical context of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Arguing that the sociolinguistic situation at the time can be described as diaglossic, we claim that language standardization ‘from above’ is a top-down effort to reorganize the sociolinguistic condition in terms of standard and non-standard. We then discuss various instruments of implementation, encompassing both private and official language planning activities such as usage guides, language academies, professorships in ‘national’ languages, language laws and educational reforms. Finally, we zoom in on the effects of implementation, distinguishing between discursive and linguistic effects (i.e. changing patterns of language use under the influence of standardization ‘from above’). Our examples are mainly taken from the Dutch situation, while also incorporating examples from English, German, French and Spanish.

Linguistic standardization has long preoccupied researchers from different sub-disciplines of linguistics, including historical, applied and sociolinguists, as well as those working on language policy. This Introduction outlines some of the key issues that run through the literature on standardization, as well as the chapters in this volume, and on which there has not always been a clear consensus. These include terminological issues, the relationship between written and spoken standards, the variability of the standard both synchronically and diachronically and the authorities on which standard languages are based. We consider how traditional models are being reviewed and challenged by opening up the scope and type of case studies to embrace multilingual situations, minoritized languages and transnational contexts. Traditional standardization narratives are also being questioned through consideration of standardization ‘from below’. Standard languages play an important role in the legal and educational systems, bringing opportunities but also challenges. We conclude by discussing a number of symptoms of the increased ‘democratization’ of standardization, such as online and digital channels, and the emergence of ‘unofficial spoken standards’.

As I show in this chapter, the broader developments in interpersonal and intersubjective relations that have taken place over the twentieth century have impacted on the way in which criminal responsibility organises relations of responsibility between individuals. I make two main arguments in this chapter. First, I argue that consorting laws fall into two generations. The first generation of laws, which appeared around the turn of the twentieth century, had a distinctive orientation, mode (which denotes the way in which criminal responsibility is expressed) and form. The second main argument made in this chapter is that these generations of consorting laws correspond to different relations of responsibility between individuals or ‘others’.

This book has shown that experts widely assumed to have been given much autonomy over governance over the past three decades are in fact intimately linked to the state. Governments defend them from public attack (see Chapter 3), empower them with more resources to fight crises (Chapter 4) and include a wider range of ‘experts’ in their working (Chapter 5). Successful areas of public policy widely claimed to be the domain of experts – monetary policy and electoral administration specifically – are designed to be closely connected with, and steered by, public authorities. This chapter turns to the theoretical implications of this argument and, in particular, delves deeper into explaining the ‘pathological’ aspects of the case studies, noted in Chapters 3–5.

This book has shown that experts widely assumed to have been given much autonomy over governance over the past three decades are in fact intimately linked to the state. Governments defend them from public attack (see Chapter 3), empower them with more resources to fight crises (Chapter 4) and include a wider range of ‘experts’ in their working (Chapter 5). Successful areas of public policy widely claimed to be the domain of experts – monetary policy and electoral administration specifically – are designed to be closely connected with, and steered by, public authorities. This chapter turns to the theoretical implications of this argument and, in particular, delves deeper into explaining the ‘pathological’ aspects of the case studies, noted in Chapters 3–5.