Talk:Official language

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wendell guan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of 'official'

It seems to be invariably assumed, here and in many other language articles, that the word 'official' must mean 'something created by legislation'. Dictionaries do not confirm that to be true. This unchallenged misunderstanding of the meaning of the word has led to inconsistencies in articles. Should we take a step back and reconsider the wiki approach to official languages? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 05:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: E.g. here: [1] they say:

(2) official, adjective

Definition of official

1: of or relating to an office, position, or trust (official duties, official documents)

2: holding an office : having authority (the president's official representative)

3 a: authoritative, authorized (official statement an official biography)

3 b: prescribed or recognized as authorized (an official language)

3 c: described by the U.S. Pharmacopeia or the National Formulary (The official drug is sold under several trade names.)

4: befitting or characteristic of a person in office (extended an official greeting, official condolences)

So we are in 3b. It's not clear to me if "prescribed or recognized as authorized" means one ot these:

"prescribed"

"recognized as authorized"

or one of these:

"prescribed as authorized"

"recognized as authorized"

and I'm not sure it makes a difference... Either way, an autority or someone who can "prescribe" something must be involved. That may not be legislature, but what else can it be that causes misunderstanding or inconsistency?--Nø (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For further clarity try this: [2] (Cambridge}

" relating to a position of responsibility"

" agreed to or arranged by people in positions ofauthority"

"If a piece of information is official, it has beenannounced publicly with authority"

and this: [3] (The Free Dictionay-Legal Dictionary section)

" adj. an act, document or anything sanctioned or authorized by a public official or public agency. The term can also apply toan organizational act or product which is authorized by the organization, such as an Official Boy Scout knife or emblem, anofficial warranty, membership card, or set of rules. 2) n. a public officer or governmental employee who is empowered toexercise judgment. 3) n. an officer of a corporation or business"

There are plenty of others like this. The point is that they all say that being 'official' relates to someone or something that is in a position of authority. To be in that position does not, in the vast majority of cases, require legislation. This seems to explain the inconsistencies, Nø, where some articles assume a language can only be official if it is written down as such in some sort of legal document, such as a constitution, while others say that does not matter, because if the language is used by someone or something in a position of authority, legislation or otherwise, then that is good enough. The consequences are significant and would seem to weaken the rigid separation of 'de jure' and 'de facto' official languages. The more important word is 'official', not 'de jure' or 'de facto'. It would seem then, that the meaning of 'official' does make a difference. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The title of this article after all is "Official language", not "de jure language of states" or "de facto language of states". Thus our criteria for selecting included languages must be attributed to some definition of the word "official" (which is not necessarily the same as "de jure" I will point out). This is of course the case unless the article is moved (which might not be a bad option, to be fair).

In any case, the current inclusion criteria as it appears in the article is as follows:

"An official language is a language that is given a special legal status in a particular country, state, or other jurisdiction. Typically a country's official language refers to the language used within government (e.g., courts, parliament, administration). Since "the means of expression of a people cannot be changed by any law", the term "official language" does not typically refer to the language used by a people or country, but by its government."

Unless this is amended, languages to be included will have an " official " status. Which, in most (but not necessarily all) of the cases here, will be what the government of said country defines as an " official " language. They could, in theory, have an official language that is defined by another "perscribed", "authorised", or "recognised" body that is separate from the legally de jure defined language. - Wiz9999 (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an interesting aside to this discussion, this section (De facto#National languages) of the de facto article directly discusses the languages of states. - Wiz9999 (talk) 15:30, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth is a "de facto official language"?

The lead begins "An official language, also called state language, is a language given a special legal status", which is clearly referring to de jure given the "special legal status" part. However this article then makes claims at Official language#United Kingdom that "The de facto official language of the United Kingdom is English". Surely this is nonsense? It's basically saying that English doesn't have de jure status as it's de facto, but if it's only de facto it obviously doesn't have special legal status and therefore it's not an official language. This contradiction is carried on at List of territorial entities where English is an official language#Sovereign states. I strongly suggest this definition is changed to resolve this problem. FDW777 (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many people assume that to be 'official' there needs to be some documented statement to that effect. This causes a problem for a language like English. Based on that possible false assumption, people have latched on to the buzz terms 'de facto' and 'de jure', which creates the problem you highlight. Ironically, languages made official by statute usually are less important than the main language that is not defined by statute, because their use is restricted. An example is NZ, where there are two official languages due to statute law - Maori and NZ Sign. Some people assume this makes them more important and of greater standing in law than English, because English has no similar documented importance, an assumption which is nonsense. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Is there any other definition of official language we could use? I have no doubt some references could be provided stating that the UK's de facto official language is English, but "official" is a nebulous word in that context so there is no guarantee the references even agree with the current definition. A sentence that basically says "English is the de facto de jure language of the United Kingdom" is absurd. Could the first two sentences be combined somehow to get rid of the "special legal status" part? Or, since you think the problem is with using "de facto" and "de jure", could they be removed instead? FDW777 (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The US wiki editors' way to treat English is to call it the national language. I think this term is useful because it also implies the language has an important all embracing status. However, the US situation is unique to itself, regarding its history, which therefore makes use of the term 'official' particularly difficult. The same reluctance to use the word official would not apply to the UK. Are you saying that de jure incorporates common law (ie unwritten) making English de jure official in the UK because someone or some institution can insist on using English, and the courts would (I assume) uphold that...thereby confirming its de jure status - therefore, the de jure/de facto distinction is unnecessary? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably better if I don't use specific countries as examples, as we'll only end up bogged down in discussions about the legal, or other, status of a particular country's language and whether it's de facto, de jure, official, or anything else. Ignoring the definition in the lead for now, consider the following:

A de jure official language is one that has legal, constitutional or whatever status.

A de facto official language is one that doesn't have legal or constitutional status, it's just the language through custom, tradition or whatever.

If you plug our current definition of official language into those the first one makes perfect sense, but the second one is nonsensical. I think the simplest way to resolve this is to remove the word "legal" from the sentence, leaving it as "An official language, also called state language, is a language given a special status in a particular country, state, or other jurisdiction". How does that sound? FDW777 (talk) 11:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of meaning required

The lead highlights a variety of meanings of the term official language. The usual cause of contentious discussion is around de facto and de jure but another less obvious difference exists. A language that is official without restriction and a language that is official in defined situations are quite distinct from each other but they are often treated the same way. In Aotearoa for example it is common to defend the use of Maori in some areas of society because it is an official language of the country "so it therefore has every right to be used". In fact, it is official only in limited, defined situations unlike English which is unrestricted. (I will leave aside the de facto-de jure debate for now). However, in other countries a language might be designated as official without restriction. I think we should attempt to break down the different catagories of an official status further, so as to stop the usual result of languages being treated as equal based merely on their being "official". Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged 'exceptions'

'In spatial terms, indigenous (endoglossic) languages are mostly employed in the function of official (state) languages in Eurasia, while mainly non-indigenous (exoglossic) imperial (European) languages fulfill this function in most of the "Rest of the World" (that is, in Africa, the Americas, Australia and Oceania). Ethiopia, Somalia, South Africa, North African countries, Greenland, Tanzania, Samoa and Paraguay are among the exceptions to this tendency.'

The list of exceptions seems misleading, b/c even the cited source actually shows that in most of them, the imperial (European) languages are employed in the function of de facto (functionally) official (state) languages. The official status of the native language is largely symbolic. This is certainly true of South Africa and Greenland. In Tanzania, Paraguay and Samoa the native languages stand strong and are formally 'official', but it is still the colonial ones that truly function as official ones in public life. Even in Ethiopia, where Amharic long had Eurasia-style official status, English has recently been given de facto official status (although the country has never been a British colony), while the status of Amharic is being weakened and it is increasingly designated as equal to the languages of the other indigenous ethnicities. Similarly, in Somalia, Somali has lost its status of sole language of administration and education and English is the leading lingua franca. The only real exceptions would seem to be the North African countries with their use of Arabic. 87.126.21.225 (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]