Prioritarianism and Language Policy

The range of languages spoken in a society, the number of speakers they have, and the relative statuses of different languages all have important distributive effects. For example, speakers of less widely spoken or low-status languages often have fewer opportunities than speakers of majority or dominant languages to access cultural resources, to engage with social and political life, or to avail of employment opportunities. The distribution of these linguistic advantages and disadvantages can be altered in two different ways – either by adjusting a person’s language repertoire or by adjusting the linguistic environment they inhabit. So, for example, implementing a majority language learning programme or providing for official recognition of a minority language are both likely to alter the distribution of linguistic advantage and disadvantage. How do we know whether policies intended to alter the distribution of linguistic advantage and disadvantage are likely to bring about normative improvements, and are such policies ever required in the name of justice? One reason why these questions are difficult to answer is that different normative principles might be employed to assess the distribution of linguistic advantage and disadvantage. Here I explore the prospects of developing a prioritarian approach. Prioritarians hold that benefitting the worst off takes priority over benefitting the better off, and that benefitting the worse off matters more the less they have. In particular, I explore two challenges that prioritarian approaches to language policy face. First, according to what criteria should the worst off be identified? Second, should a prioritarian language policy allocate a weighted or absolute priority to the worst off?