Language Planing in Brasil

GLADIS MASSINI-CAGLIARI

LANGUAGE POLICY IN BRAZIL:MONOLINGUALISM AND LINGUISTIC PREJUDICE

(Received 12 May 2003; accepted in revised form 30 November 2003)

ABSTRACT. The purpose of this article is to analyse the linguistic situation in Braziland to discuss the relationship between Portuguese and the 200 other languages, about170 indigenous, spoken in the country. It focuses on three points: the historical process oflanguage unification, recent official language policy initiatives, and linguistic prejudice. Iexamine two manifestations of linguistic prejudice, one against external elements and theother against supposedly inferior internal elements, pointing out to a common origin: themyth that the Portuguese language in Brazil is characterised by an astonishing unity.

KEY WORDS: Brazil, Brazilian Portuguese, language policy in Brazil, language unifica-tion, linguistic ideology, linguistic prejudice, monolingualism

IS THERE REALLY A LINGUISTIC QUESTION CONCERNING BRAZIL?

Brazil is an astonishing country in several ways. It is the only Portuguese-speaking country in America and is surrounded by Spanish-speakingcountries. The fifth largest country in the world, with a population of175 million inhabitants, Brazil is and was almost always viewed, both byforeign observers but also by its own population, as an enormous, linguisti-cally homogeneous giant. Generally, Brazilians assume that everybody inBrazil speaks a unique variety of the Portuguese language. Accordingto this language perception, Brazil is a country without any linguisticproblems.

This language perception by Brazilians can be considered correct onlyin the sense that almost everyone can communicate through Portugueseeverywhere within the Brazilian territory. And it is also correct if wecompare Brazil to countries where there is official bilingualism or multi-lingualism and two or more languages are considered official languages ofthe nation and where a relevant part of the population is made of activespeakers of more than one language. Indeed, in Brazil, almost the totalpopulation is constituted of monolingual Portuguese speakers, and the vastmajority of them will never learn a second language.

But this perception of the Brazilian linguistic world can be alsoconsidered wrong if we recall that Portuguese is not in fact the only

Language Policy 3: 3–23, 2004.© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

4 GLADIS MASSINI-CAGLIARI

language of Brazil. Although it is true that the vast majority of Braziliansare monolingual, it is not true that Brazil as a whole is a monolingualcountry. Following a recent estimate, there are about 200 differentlanguages that are spoken within the Brazilian territory, of which approxi-mately 170 are indigenous languages, while the others are mainly ofEuropean or Asian origin. Therefore, Brazil is a multilingual nation, like94% of the countries in the world (Oliveira, 2002: 83–84).

Certainly, these other languages are spoken by marginalised minoritieswithout a significant economic power, that is by indigenous groups andimmigrants. Moreover, they have never been recognised as legitimate oreven as existing by the media. It is also true that the major TV channelsalways consider the viewpoint of the majority in their programming. In thisrespect, the populations of non-Portuguese speakers in Brazil are ‘statisti-cally non-significant’ for them. Their choice is not only economic, but alsoideological. The media (including TV, radio and newspapers) have alwaysembraced the idea of Brazil being a linguistically homogeneous giant.

Searching for the reasons for the “invisibility” of the real Brazilianlinguistic scenario, Oliveira (2002: 83) points to three possibilities: ignor-ance of the truth, overlooking the truth as a result of a political policythat intentionally projects a convenient idea of a monolingual country, orsimply pure linguistic prejudice.1

For several levels, all these reasons stand together. The acceptancewithout discussion of the fact that Portuguese is Brazil’s unique language,felt as a natural phenomenon, has been in the past and is still nowfundamental to obtaining nation wide consensus to the repressive policiestowards the languages of Brazilian minorities (Oliveira, 2002: 83).

Analysing the Brazilian linguistic scenario from another point of view,the three reasons pointed out by Oliveira (2002) can also be correlatedto the invisibility of the Portuguese varieties spoken in Brazil. The wide-spread belief that the language spoken in Brazil is highly homogeneous isdue probably to a twofold reason: firstly because there are no apparentproblems of mutual intelligibility in everyday communication betweenspeakers of different varieties of Brazilian Portuguese, when comparedwith what happens to different varieties of other languages, like Italian,Chinese and English; secondly, and more probable, because the intelli-gibility is not jeopardised by phonological, morphological and syntactic

1 From the perspective of their results, the first two possibilities pointed by Oliveiracan be considered one and the same; however, they are different in intentionality: in thefirst one, the ignorance of the truth is non-intentional; in the second one, it is a result of apolitical project.

LANGUAGE POLICY IN BRAZIL 5

variations. This fact gives the false impression that the language is totallyhomogeneous.

Again, the image that Brazilians have of their own language is not incomplete correspondence to reality. Historically, Brazilian Portuguese isa relatively recent variety of Portuguese. Because of this, there has notbeen enough time for the emergence of distinct dialects due to geographicor social isolation. In addition to this historical linguistic fact, the socio-linguistic effect of TV Globo (the most important national TV network),beaming its signal all over the national territory and making the countrya perfect ‘global village’, has enormous importance into setting a presti-gious variety of the language as a standard for everyone in the country.2

Even with that powerful influence upon the life of the population, itwould surprise a linguist if a huge country like Brazil did not show anysignificant linguistic variation, considering the evidently striking socialand economical differences.

Although there is no clear definition of what would be the standardBrazilian Portuguese, individuals tend to identify it with the varietyadopted by important TV news programmes, especially Jornal Nacional,the most important TV news programme on TV Globo. In this programme,the hosts speak a pasteurised linguistic variety, made up of ‘neutral’features from the two most important urban varieties: from Rio de Janeiroand São Paulo. The final result is a mixture of features that make a goodimpression upon educated people, with a clear effort to suppress anycharacteristic that would identify with only one of those varieties. In otherwords, the standard Brazilian Portuguese promoted by the TV news is nota natural variety of the language. On the contrary, it is an artificial variety

2 Fischer (2001: 174) notes that, after the Second World War, the intrusion of televisionincreased dialect levelling; because of that, “contamination and superimposition have sincebeen documented among large populations of viewers”. In his opinion, “at this moment,television is perhaps the single greatest cause of universal dialect levelling” – referring tothe use of standard American English, that is increasing at a rapid rate in those English-speaking countries that broadcast American programmes without ‘dubbing’. But Fischer(2001: 182) also notes that “in a contrasting process, the recent ‘modernization’ of theBritish Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) has essentially eliminated what had come tobe called ‘BBC English’, an easily recognizable received pronunciation of the Englishlanguage that had long been held in high regard. Now, older listeners, be they in Britainor New Zealand, register alarm at hearing in BBC broadcasts what they register as ‘lower-class pronunciation’; they feel this not only ‘lower standards’ but also demonstrates ‘abeastly lack of good taste’. However, such protestations are meaningless in the larger sagaof living languages. ‘Superior’ dialects are only a chimera, as special dialects themselvesvery soon mutate and/or lose what made them special.”


and a convenient way to manipulate the language problems in a huge andheterogeneous country like Brazil.3

When a ‘non-Globo variety’ is needed, it is never the voice of the‘official’ news. Non-stigmatised regional varieties are accepted only asa ‘secondary’ source of information. And the stigmatised social varietiesonly appear in this context as the voice of very poor people, when theyare presented as victims of violence or natural disasters, or as the voice ofcriminals.

It is interesting to notice that the non-news TV programmes, mainlythe soap-operas (novelas), usually show some characters who speak witha caricatured variety, by emphasising regional or social accents to themaximum, instead of using an artist that is a native user of those regionalor social accents. For this kind of programme, it seems unthinkable togive higher status on TV to regional or social varieties of less importance,because this would be an ‘official’ recognition that those varieties actuallyexist in the society. This is good evidence that the social stereotypes inrelation to language in Brazil are carefully built and strongly reinforcedby the media, principally by the TV networks. It also reveals a generaland somehow official disbelief in the heterogeneity of the language in thecountry.

In the same way that the common sense view never sees that otherlanguages are spoken in addition to Portuguese in Brazil, the varieties ofthe vast majority of the population are never considered as belonging toBrazilian Portuguese. Since people are not deaf to linguistic variation andare capable of realising that the variety they speak is different from thePortuguese spoken on television, the vast majority of the Brazilian peopledevelop a very strong complex of linguistic incompetence: they believethey do not speak Portuguese, but an incorrect form that does not deservethe name of Portuguese.

In spite of the apparently harmonious linguistic scenario (or becauseof that), the linguistic problem is never posed as a question in thenational agenda. When it is, it is considered a shortcoming of the educa-tional system. Only official and traditional discourses about languageproblems seem to be acceptable in Brazilian society, and this meansignoring the dangerous consequences of this idealisation of languageproblems.

The most striking truth about linguistic variation is the fact that evenhighly educated people, especially the ones that appear in the media, ignorethe scientific discourse about language. Consequently, ordinary people do

3 Moreover, TV Globo maintains in its staff speech specialists to train the readers of thenews to pronounce the ‘global’ variety of Brazilian Portuguese.


not have access to a critical view about the traditional mythical misunder-standings about language. According to Faraco (2002: 39), in terms ofthinking about language, we still live in a pre-scientific dogmatic andobscurantist age.4

The problems about language go beyond the identification of regionaland social varieties as linguistic problems. It is an important politicalproblem that deeply affects several social situations. Moreover, it is not asimple shortcoming of the educational system. In the end, we come acrossignorance and prejudice, present in the everyday life of the people andeven in educational strategies. It is time to start a more scientific discussioninvolving the multiple aspects of language in society. It is time to start adebate between the multiple discourses about language in Brazil (Faraco,2002: 39).

LANGUAGE UNIFICATION

When we look at the Brazilian linguistic past (a very recent one of 500years, in terms of surviving documents – all of the indigenous languagesspoken in Brazil only recently began to be written), it is possible to see thatBrazil was, much more than today, a multilingual territory. According toRodrigues (1998: 5), there were more than one thousand native indigenousspoken languages when Cabral arrived in Brazil in the year 1500. But,by 2000, only 170 remained (15% of the total amount), and, even so,most of them are already dying, being spoken by very small popula-tions and with almost no chance of surviving because of the advance ofPortuguese.

Until the middle of the 18th century, the Portuguese language wasspoken only in the coastal areas. In São Paulo and in the territorial areaof expansion resulting from the bandeirantes’ action (the bandeiranteswere hunters of native slaves and gold and precious stone prospectors),the spoken language was the língua geral (i.e., lingua franca or ‘general’language), an indigenous language, with Tupi origins. This was thelanguage spoken by the Jesuits and described by José de Anchieta(1595). In the Northeast there were indigenous tribal languages thatsurvived extinction, African languages that resisted slavery, in addition toPortuguese and Creole varieties derived from Portuguese (for example,Papiamento, a Portuguese based Creole, taken to Curaçao and Arubawith the slaves that belonged to the Dutch, after they were expelled from

4 Discussing this problem in the United States, Baugh (1999: 6) asks: “Should somecitizens be discriminated against because of our collective linguistic ignorance?”


Recife by the Portuguese). In the north, other indigenous languages werespoken and another type of lingua franca, the Amazonian língua geral, orNheengatu, also originated from an indigenous language, spread over theregion (Zilles, 2002: 151–152).5

In Brazil, since colonial times, every initiative of language policy wasbased on repression (Bagno, 2002b: 54). The most important initiativefrom those times was the Marquês de Pombal’s ‘Diretório dos índios’(‘Directory of the Indians’), published in 1757. It established Portuguese asthe one and only language of Brazil, prohibiting the use and teaching of anyother language, especially the língua geral. The imposition of Portugueseas the obligatory language was made at a time when that language waspractically the exclusive domain of white people, who were responsiblefor administration and territorial exploration, and who constituted a verysmall sector of the population. To impose Portuguese on African and nativeslaves without guaranteeing the means for its effective learning (if slaveswere not even considered persons, then how could they have rights to aformal education?) was, in those days, the first step in the direction of usingPortuguese as an instrument of social exclusion. It takes only a short stepfrom this repressive situation to the linguistic prejudice that stigmatises thepopular use of speech today.

The disappearance of Nheengatu was gradual. It was accelerated bythe death of 40,000 speakers of this language, native and Africans, inthe revolution called Cabanagem, from 1834 to 1841, and completed withthe arrival of between 300,000 to 500,000 Nordestinos (North-Easterners),monolingual Portuguese speakers, in the Amazonian region. It happenedbetween 1870 (when the ciclo da borracha – rubber economy – began)and 1918 (end of the First World War) (Oliveira, 2002: 86). Althoughthe replacement of Nheengatu by Portuguese continues, it still survivesin the region of Manaus and Alto Rio Negro, in an area of approximately300,000 km2. There, Nheengatu is the language of day to day communica-tion among the resident populations and it is the language of trade (BessaFreire, 1983: 73 – apud; Oliveira, 2002: 86).6 A proof of its survival in

5 Concerning South-American lınguas gerais and structural changes common to all ofthem, see Rodrigues (n.d.).

6 On November 22, 2002, three indigenous languages (Nheengatu, Tukano and Baniwa)were declared official languages in São Gabriel da Cachoeira, state of Amazonas, inaddition to Portuguese. It was the first time in the history of Brazil that an indigenouslanguage obtained official status by law (Gilvan Müller de Oliveira, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CVL and http://www.ipol.org.br, accessed on 14 February 2003).


the area is the existence of election propaganda, written in Nheengatu (seeTable 1).7

Today, in Brazil, there are about 345,000 indigenous people, distributedin 215 communities, that represent about only 0.2% of the population.These data refer only to those individuals who live in aldeias (Indianvillages), but it is possible to estimate that, besides these, there are between100,000 and 190,000 Indians living outside the reservas indígenas (Indianreservations), including urban areas.8 Even today, many Indians speak onlytheir own language, not knowing Portuguese. Others speak Portuguese astheir second language. And there are others who speak only Portuguese.

The linguist Aryon Dall’Igna Rodrigues (1985, 1999) established agenealogic classification for Brazilian Indigenous languages that is untiltoday the most respected in the scientific community. He grouped thoselanguages in families, considered as belonging to three different linguisticbranches: Tupi, Macro-Jê and Aruak. There are families, however, thatcould not be identified as related to any of the three major branches: Karib,Pano, Maku, Yanoama, Mura, Tukano, Katukina, Txapakura, Nambikwaraand Guaikuru. Besides these, there are languages that can be subdivided indifferent dialects: for example, the language spoken by the groups Krikati,Ramkokametrá (Canela), Apinayé, Krahó, Gavião (Pará), Pükobyê andApaniekrá (Canela) are dialects of the Timbira language.

When we observe the distribution of indigenous populations in Braziltoday, it is possible to see traces of the historical movement of political andeconomic expansion. The majority of indigenous societies that preservedtheir languages live today in the northern, central and southern regionsof Brazil. In the other regions, they were pushed back as urbanisationadvanced.

In opposition to the trend of replacing Indian languages withPortuguese, it is possible to see today a revitalisation process whereby theoral language is reinforced with written language in a few Xingu villages,that began with the adoption of a bilingual literacy methodology in schoolslocated inside the aldeias (cf. Fargetti, 2002, on Juruna; Monte, 1996, onKaxinawá). In fact, bilingual education is seen today as the only way ofpreserving native languages in Brazil, especially by indigenous teachers

7 Example collected and presented by Gilvan Müller de Oliveira (2002: 86). Thetranslation to Portuguese is also his. The English version is mine. (Words originally inPortuguese remain untouched in both Portuguese and English versions.)

8 Information available on Funai’s (Fundação Nacional do Indio – The NationalIndian Foundation) homepage, http://www.funai.gov.br/indios/conteudo.htm (accessed on1 February 2003).


TAB

LE

1

Ele

ctio

npr

opag

anda

inN

heen

gatu

wit

hP

ortu

gues

ean

dE

ngli

shtr

ansl

atio

ns.

Alt

oR

ioN

egro

mir

aita

arã

Aos

povo

sdo

alto

Rio

Neg

roTo

the

peop

leof

Alt

oR

ioN

egro

Sem

uita

Meu

sir

mão

s:M

ybr

othe

rs:

Mbu

essa

raA

loys

ioN

ogue

ira

OP

rofe

ssor

Alo

ysio

Nog

ueir

ae

Teac

her

Alo

ysio

Nog

ueir

ais

cand

idat

oca

ndid

ato

cand

idat

o

Dep

utad

oE

stad

uala

rãa

Dep

utad

oE

stad

ual.

toD

eput

ado

Est

adua

l

Ae

mir

aka

tu,t

imir

apu

xi.

Ele

ege

nte

boa.

Ele

eno

sso

He

isa

good

pers

on.H

eis

our

Ae

yane

anam

a.am

igo

(par

ente

).fr

iend

(rel

ativ

e).

Dep

utad

oes

tadu

alya

we,

Com

ode

puta

does

tadu

al,

Act

ing

asD

eput

ado

Est

adua

l,M

bues

sara

Alo

ysio

Nog

ueir

aus

suo

prof

esso

rA

loys

ioN

ogue

ira

vai

Teac

her

Alo

ysio

Nog

ueir

aw

illb

e

yane

mar

amun

hang

ara

kiri

mba

wa

ser

ono

sso

vale

nte

guer

reir

o.ou

rbr

ave

war

rior

.

kuri

.

Ae

ussu

Alt

oR

ioN

egro

mir

aita

Ele

vais

era

voz

dos

povo

sdo

He

wil

lbe

the

voic

eof

Alt

oR

io

nhee

nga

kuri

Ass

embl

eia

Alto

Rio

Neg

rona

Ass

embl

eia

Neg

ro’s

peop

lein

the

Ass

embl

eia

Leg

isla

tiva

upe.

Leg

isla

tiva.

Leg

isla

tiva

.

Ixe

ayum

ana

penh

e,se

anam

aita

.E

uvo

sab

raço

,meu

spa

rent

es.

Iem

brac

eyo

u,m

yre

lativ

es.

Mbu

essa

raA

uxil

iom

arSi

lva

Uga

rte

Pro

fess

orA

uxili

omar

Silv

aTe

ache

rA

uxili

omar

Silv

aU

gart

e.

suı.

Uga

rte.


(cf. Kahn, 1994; Monte, 1996; Midlin, 1997; Aiwá, 1997).9 But we mustbe cautious about the concept and introduction of bilingual education inthis context. In Grupioni’s (1997: 184) opinion, all educational attemptsin the past aimed to “integrate” indigenous people, but in the sense of “totransform them into something different from what they were”. However,Grupioni also recognises that only a “specific, differentiated, interculturaland bilingual” education can become an “instrument of affirmation ofdifferent identities”, instead of being an “instrument of imposition andassimilation”.10

In spite of the dominance of língua geral at the beginning of thecolonisation, the influence of indigenous languages on the structure ofcurrent Brazilian Portuguese is almost nonexistent. Their ancestral pres-ence in the geographic area of Brazil can only be traced in the lexicon, inwhich their legacy is restricted to names, especially of places, animals andfood.

From the beginning of the colonial period, the Portuguese transportedto Brazil an enormous number of African slaves. As competent slavetraders, the Portuguese always knew that they had to separate familiesand members of the same tribe into different groups, in order to avoidthe formation of bonds of friendship and movements of insurrection.In the same way, they used to separate speakers of the same languageinto different groups. Maybe because of the success of the strategiesadopted by the Portuguese, African languages never stabilised or becamespoken in Brazil, despite the number of African descendants. Historically,some of those languages were temporarily spoken in a few Quilombos,communities of fugitive slaves. The influence of African languageson Brazilian Portuguese is even less significant than the influence ofindigenous languages. Only words referring to food, religious practices,music and parts of the body remain in the lexicon. There is today in Brazila movement to recover a few terms and traditions related to religions ofAfrican origin. And there are also movements of racial affirmation, withpractically no ramifications for language.

In the 18th century, Portuguese was already the dominant languagein the most developed cities, where several important literary texts were

9 Cavalcanti (1996) studies the interaction between teacher educators and indigenousteachers in a Guarani community in the South of Brazil. She describes the conflicts origi-nated by this situation of interaction, and the “cross-cultural” misunderstandings to takeaccount of the divergent interest of both groups and the wider political context of theoppression of indigenous people in Brazil.

10 Hornberger (1998: 451) reviews several situations concerning other languages (Maori,Hebrew and Welsh, for example) in which bilingual schools were crucial instruments forlanguage revitalisation.


produced. Portuguese was the dominant language in Gregório de Matos’Bahia (18th century). Portuguese was also the language of the incon-fidentes from Minas Gerais (18th century), among which was the poetTomás Antônio Gonzaga. Of course, these important poets were educatedEuropean Portuguese speakers.

From 1820, with the beginning of the official processes (e.g. Lei doVentre Livre11 and Lei do Sexagenário12) which culminated in the aboli-tion of slavery in 1888, and with the recognition that, in certain ways, topay independent workers was cheaper and more productive than to main-tain slaves, large groups of immigrants began to arrive in Brazil, aiming tosubstitute slave labour in agriculture.

Brazil has never stopped receiving immigrants since then. Of course,there were periods of increment in the number of immigrants (especiallyafter the two world wars) and periods of decrease in this number (mainlyin recent years, because of the economic crisis). Today, there are in Brazildescendants of immigrants from virtually everywhere in the world. Thereare large groups of Italians, Germans, Japanese,13 Spanish, Lebanese, and,more recently, Chinese and Korean. In Southeast region, they mixed withthe local population and tended to abandon their native language in at mostthree generations.

In the South, especially in the states of Santa Catarina and Rio Grandedo Sul (but even in some cities of São Paulo, in the Southeast), the structureof small agricultural properties and homogeneous colonisation providedsuitable conditions for the maintenance of German and Italian languagesin some areas. In an estimated national population of 50 million inhabit-ants, 644,458 (Brazilian citizens, born in Brazil in the majority) used tospeak German at home, and 458,054, Italian (Oliveira, 2002: 88). Germanand Italian immigrants and their descendants eventually became victimsof the policy of linguistic unification. They came under violent linguisticand cultural repression during Getúlio Vargas’ Estado Novo (1937–1945),

11 Lei do Ventre Livre (‘Law of the free womb’), 1871: it stated that the newbornchildren of slaves would be free from that date.

12 Lei do Sexagenario (‘Law of the Sixties’), 1885: it stated that slaves over 65 years oldwould be freed.

13 São Paulo is considered the largest Japanese city outside Japan. In the Japanese area ofthe city, there are newspapers published in Japanese and bilingual schools. It is curious tonotice that, in present days, because of the economic crisis, Brazilian Japanese descendantsare re-crossing the oceans in the contrary direction, emigrating “back” to Japan. They areknown by the name dekasseguis. Their adaptation in the country is very difficult, because,besides the great differences in labour systems, the majority do not speak the Japaneselanguage anymore and those who still know the language are stigmatised, because theirvariety is considered impolite, uneducated and archaic.


because of the juridical concept of crime idiomático (= idiomatic crime).From 1941 to 1945, the government took over control and ownership of theschools of German and Italian communities. The government also closeddown the presses that published newspapers in German or Italian andpersecuted, imprisoned and tortured several individuals, purely becausethey had spoken their maternal languages in public or in private (Oliveira,2002: 87–88).

With Independence and (lately) with the Republic, linguistic unifica-tion processes in favour of Portuguese have been continuously reinforced,as, officially, Portuguese was always considered the unique language ofBrazil. With economic development after the Second World War, meansof communication (newspapers, radio and television) began to reach everypart of the Brazilian territory and reinforce the dominance of Portuguese,even in boundary regions. As has been said previously, today, Brazil isoften viewed as a gigantic ‘aldeia global’ (global village), inasmuch asthe influence of TV Globo, the most powerful and popular Brazilian TVnetwork in the formation of general opinion is striking, and also in thecreation and maintenance of a language standard.

RECENT OFFICIAL INITIATIVES OF LANGUAGE POLICY

Topics related to linguistic policy are always approached in Brazil today bythe most important newspapers and magazines as mere “issues of culturalinterest” (Schmitz, 2002: 88), maybe because the two most recent initia-tives in this respect are less “violent” than earlier policies of repression(less violent in the sense that no one is supposed to be killed because oftheir language). But they are still highly questionable.

The first one concerns the Acordo Ortográfico (Orthographic Accord)among Portuguese-speaking countries. In practice, it involves an agree-ment between Portugal and Brazil, because the African countries tend toadopt the European Portuguese spelling. First of all, it is necessary to saythat an accord of this nature, referring to the way by which Portuguese willbe spelled on both sides of the Atlantic, does not involve a linguistic ques-tion in a strict sense, since changes in orthographic system do not affectthe structure of the language. In this respect, even if Brazil and Portugalcould reach a common understanding and consequent agreement about thismatter (as has been attempted since the 1980s), differences concerning thelanguage spoken in these two countries would not be reduced. In fact, theproblem is not a question of linguistic science, but of diplomacy and ofjuridical order, since orthography (spelling) is an object of law, in bothcountries, and, being so, it is official only in its country of origin. Since


differences in the orthography adopted in Portugal and Brazil are verysmall, it would be more practical to solve this quarrel at a legal level, givingofficial status to both spelling systems in both countries (concerning thevery few words in which traditionally there are differences in spelling).14

The most recent initiative of language policy in Brazil is the Projetode Lei Número 1676 de 1999 (Projected Law #1676/1999), proposed byDeputado Aldo Rebelo (Partido Comunista do Brasil – São Paulo), thathas not yet been approved, since it is still being discussed in the Câmarados Deputados (Chamber of the Deputies) and in the Senado (Senate). Itis known by the name Lei dos Estrangeirismos, because it proposes theprohibition of the use of foreign words in Brazil, including legal sanctionswith a fine to those who use “abusive” (sic!) foreign words (that is, wordsthat have equivalents in Portuguese). According to Deputado Rebelo,Portuguese needs to be “defended” from the invasion of foreign words(mainly from English origin) and “promoted” in the national territory.15

Apparently aiming to protect humble people that do not know how tospeak English against “harmful North-American intruder words”, Rebelo’sprojected law imposes the use of Portuguese in public spaces, includingwork places, on any foreigner who has been living in Brazil for more thanone year (Zilles, 2002: 146–147). Although the projected law alludes toregional peculiarities of speech and writing and recognises that languageschange with time, it is in fact based on a homogeneous and aestheticconception of language, because the language is considered mainly in itsunity. This supposed possibility of equal communication at all levels isnothing more than a myth, an idealisation (Fiorin, 2002: 113).

If desire is the force that moves language users towards borrowingwords from foreign languages (many times, unneeded ones), then fear isprobably the feeling that generates the aversion to loans - fear of invasionthat threatens control, that threatens the supposed language purity and themonolithic nationality, and lastly, fear of plurality and diversity (Garcez &

14 This is not the first attempt to achieve an Accord over Orthography between Braziland Portugal. Discussions over this subject began in the end of the XIXth century. Spellingreforms were made independently by the two countries and there were unsuccessful effortstowards unification in the 1940s (cf. Cagliari, 1992, 1996). See also Garcez (1995), whoshows that, while most of the debate revolves around issues of linguistic efficiency, theAccord and its proponents are primarily concerned with political and diplomatic efficiency.

15 This kind of law (i.e. defending the language of the nation against borrowings fromforeign languages) is neither a novelty nor a Brazilian creation. Similar laws were approvedin France (Toubon law, 1994 – cf. Judge, 2002), Iceland (Vikør, 2002) and Italy (during thefascist period – cf. Ruzza, 2002), for example. However, purist manifestations against loansare not always codified into law, although they persist as a prescriptivist force [concerningGerman, see Barbour (2002); Mar-Molinero (2002) analyses this problem in Spain].


Zilles, 2002: 34). An initiative based on fear does not match with a peoplewho have always been proud to be a result of a racial mixture, in officialand popular speeches.

Despite its supposed nationalistic appeal that seduced politicians andjournalists, Aldo Rebelo’s proposal was severely criticised by sectors ofthe media and mainly by Brazilian linguists (see the book edited by Faraco,2002). Because of this reaction, the Rebelo bill has been set aside byBrazil’s Senate. Instead, a substitutive text was presented by Senator AmirLando. It is a revised version that was prepared with the contributionof both Brazilian Association of Linguistics (ABRALIN) and BrazilianAssociation of Applied Linguistics (ALAB).

The new version of the law was proposed in May 28th 2003. Althoughit continues to forbid the use of foreign words in official documents, in themedia, in commercial advertisements and posters, and creates commis-sions to translate the “needed” foreign technical terms, in several ways itis a declaration of “good intentions”. Among various measures, it proposesthe creation of means for the renovation of Portuguese teaching in Brazilas well as the formation of Portuguese teachers; it also wills to strengthenrelations between Brazil and the community of Portuguese-speakingcountries.

However, the anti-foreign-words project still continues to define thelanguage of the nation as one which must be protected against the foreignmenace, and doing so, it still legitimises the definition of the nationallanguage as restricted to the language of power, to the socially controllablewritten pattern, whose limits are defined by an elite. In this context, whenan external element is configured as a common menace, linguistic differ-ences that mark internal divisions of society are overshadowed (Garcez &Zilles, 2002: 27). Differences between Brazilians who speak differentlyand who mark their different identity precisely in the way they speak aresimply erased.

It is interesting to observe that individuals that criticise the“scandalous” presence of foreign words in our “pure” Portuguese are thesame that condemn popular, regional and informal Portuguese (Schmitz,2002: 101). It is even more interesting to observe that these two manifesta-tions of linguistic prejudice (against the external element and againstthe supposed inferior internal element) have a common origin: the myththat Portuguese language in Brazil is characterised by an amazing unity(Bagno, 2002a: 15) and the association between State (the Nation) andPortuguese as its official language (Silva & Moura, 2002: 11). On the onehand, the denial of multilingualism and, on the other hand, the exclusionof speech and ways of speaking that are not in strict correspondence with


this idealised Portuguese are direct and concrete results of a social postureplenty of linguistic prejudice.

LINGUISTIC PREJUDICE

When a child begins to speak, he/she does not learn just one language:he/she learns the specific variety of the language spoken by his/her parents.The adoption of a specific linguistic variety has the function of marking theinclusion of an individual into the social group to which he belongs and ofgiving identity to the members of this specific group. As native speakers ofone language, we learn to distinguish variation. We may learn to speak justone variety, but we are hearers of all varieties of the language (Cagliari,1989). Every speaker is necessarily a “polyglot” in his own language.To know Portuguese, in this sense, is not only to know rules that existexclusively in the language learned from school.

Native speakers of Brazilian Portuguese know how to distinguish thePaulista (São Paulo) variety from the Carioca (Rio de Janeiro) variety, theGaúcha (Rio Grande do Sul) variety from those spoken in the northeastand north, without mentioning all other types of varieties of Portuguesein Brazil. A native speaker also knows differences in linguistic uses: forexample, that some expressions belong to the speech of younger personsand that particular expressions can only be used in informal situations, etc.To know one language is also to know its varieties. Varieties are not uglyor beautiful, right or wrong, good or bad, elegant or inelegant; they aresimply different (Fiorin, 2002: 114).

Modern linguists recognise languages as a collection of regional,social, situational and temporal variants. Modern sociolinguistics analyseslanguage variants in accordance with a particular situation of interac-tion. Any language used in any society cannot be prescribed by languageguardians; instead it will always be the result of a historical process:contacts with populations of other countries, cultural experiences, polit-ical trajectory, etc. Facing these facts, since its beginning, linguists labeledthe prescriptivist posture as pre-scientific, hoping that social and linguisticprejudices generated by prescriptivism could naturally disappear and bebeaten by the development of linguistic research and more scientificallybased educational systems (Silva & Moura, 2002: 9–10). However, thescenario did not change in Brazil.16 Recently, the debate about linguisticprejudice has returned to provoke discussions among Brazilian linguists,

16 Considering the persistence of manifestations of linguistic prejudice in society, thescenario did not change all over the world – even in the most powerful and educatedcountries, as in the United States, for example. There are important studies focusing on


because it is impossible not to notice that prejudice is far from beingdefeated in the country. Two reasons have been pointed out: firstly, theperception that manifestations of linguistic prejudice persisted in oursociety, including official initiatives (for example, Deputado Aldo Rebelo’sproposal), but especially in the media (for example, the enormous successof new media-friendly purist grammarians); secondly, the recognition ofthe fact that the symbolic power of language can lead to stronger inter-actions between language uses and social prejudice that could not beimagined by descriptivist language researchers (Silva & Moura, 2002: 10).

Bagno (2002a: 15) believes that the idea that Brazilian Portuguese ischaracterised by an amazing unity is the most dangerous and serious of allthe myths that compose the mosaic of linguistic prejudice in Brazil. Thismyth is harmful to education because, not recognising the true diversityof the Portuguese language spoken in Brazil, the education system triesto impose its linguistic pattern as if it were in fact the common languageto all 175 million Brazilians, independent of their age, geographic origin,socioeconomic situation and educational level (Bagno, 2002a: 15). Thelinguistic prejudice in Brazil manifests itself with a stronger ferocity inrelation to the speech of the poorer sector of the population, independentlyof geographic region. The serious differences in social status explain theexistence of a true linguistic abyss between speakers of non-standard vari-eties (the vast majority of our population) and speakers of a (supposed)standard variety in Brazil (Bagno, 2002a: 15).

The most damaging point about the linguistic prejudice against the vari-eties of Brazilian Portuguese spoken in the poorer sectors of the popula-tion is the correlation linking poverty to cognitive and mental deficits.From this viewpoint, those who do not “speak correctly”, do not “thinkproperly”.17 And, because judgements on language extend to those who

non-standard English in that country that show how linguistic prejudice emerges in severaldimensions. Lippi-Green (1997), for example, focuses on regional and social variation,looking at how the media works to promote linguistic stereotyping; she also examines howemployers discriminate on the basis of language use and reveals how the judicial systemuses language to protect the status quo. Baugh (1999: 6) discusses the relevance of African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) to education and social policies, showing that it is“far from being an impoverished dialect”, despite it continues to stigmatise speakers as“uneducated ” members of the society. Smitherman (2000) comments on the late 1990sEbonics controversy, linking it to past issues about language, culture and education ofpeople of African descent in the United States. Rickford (1999) covers three central areascorrelated to AAVE/Ebonics studies: phonological and grammatical features of AAVE;evolution of AAVE; and educational implications.

17 Baugh (1999) discusses this correlation and its damaging consequences in the UnitedStates, concerning AAVE. He examines the assumption of standard English speakers thatnon-standard English speakers are ignorant. In this sense, there is a common stereotype


speak it, speakers of non-standard varieties are automatically considerednon-capable workers and, consequently, non-capable individuals.

In Brazil, this is the main reason that explains why linguistic prejudiceagainst the speech of popular classes is so widespread. The separation ofthe rationality of the educated class, on one side, from the pre-rationalspontaneity of the poorer, on the other, is a well-established dichotomyin the culture. Even those who consider popular language to be creativeand spontaneous, although illogical, like for example the ex-PresidentSarney, fall into another kind of prejudice, disguised in an understandingappreciation of specific values of popular language and culture (Moura,2002: 76–77). Since all dialects18 of the language are equally efficient,whether they are prestigious or not, there is no scientific reason against theadoption of non-standard varieties of Portuguese by the education system.However, choosing the linguistic variety of the community as the languagefor education purposes, particularly in the case of non-prestigious stigma-tised varieties, results in the confinement of the students to their own world,condemning them endlessly to poverty, preventing them from enlargingtheir horizons and from promoting themselves socially – education is stilla powerful instrument of social promotion. In this sense, the educationsystem is obliged to live in an eternal contradiction: the variety spokenby the students should not be discriminated against, because it is also aninstrument of self-positioning and of individual affirmation as a memberof a specific group inside the whole society, but the education system mustpromote the use of a standard variety, since the advantages the students willgain from it are evident. A non-discriminative educational approach to thedialects spoken by the students must promote their use in adequate situ-ations. In this way, the decision to teach standard Portuguese at Brazilianschools is not intrinsically discriminatory of the other varieties, if it ispresented and treated as one among many varieties of the language. A goodprogramme should teach how the non-prestigious varieties are structuredalong with the study of the descriptive grammar of a standard variety.

that non-standard speakers could speak “properly” if “only they put forth sufficient effort”,that is responsible for this misconception. It is not difficult to find coincidences here, incomparison to the Brazilian situation.

18 Recently, some scholars who discussed language prejudice and the contradictorydilemma of the education system concerning non-standard varieties preferred not to use theword “dialect”, because of its pejorative appeal to the public view. That is why Smitherman(2000: 14) prefers to consider AAVE a ‘language’ – and not a ‘dialect’ of AmericanEnglish.


CONCLUSION

Brazilians like to see themselves as a result of a racial mixture and theyare quite proud of this image (in spite of the fact that this idea tends tohide racial and social prejudices that, in fact, persist in the country). Thisimage is also a commonplace to Brazilianists, who always like to see Brazilas a kind of multiracial paradise, a harmonious country that unites severaldifferent races in the same geographic area, without civil war or nationalistconflicts.19

However, the linguistic reality does not fit the description of racialharmony, because the country, since colonial times, has constituted aplace of movements of language unification towards Portuguese. In thisscenario, an attitude of harmonious co-existence with diversity was neverconsidered. Even today, the existence of linguistic diversity in Brazil isalways denied, in official discourses, in the media, and in the commonsense of the population, and in both levels: concerning other languagesand concerning varieties of Brazilian Portuguese.

The majority of the population ignore the linguistic reality of thecountry. They do not know that there are several different indigenouslanguages: most of the people think that there is only one (and this ideais reinforced every year by the educational system, in parties celebratingDia do Índio – Indian’s Day).

Indeed, the majority of the people believe that Brazilians speakPortuguese, but an inferior and illegitimate variety, compared to EuropeanPortuguese – the “correct” model for the language.

Unfortunately, it is not possible to present an easy and immediatesolution to the present situation that could terminate linguistic prejudicedefinitely and help ordinary Brazilians perceive the linguistic reality of thecountry. It is well known that “language policy and language education canserve as vehicles for promoting the vitality, versatility, and stability of (. . .)languages” (Hornberger, 1988: 439).

In the case of co-existence of different languages in indigenouscommunities and in groups of immigrants, bilingual schools have beenseen as powerful weapons of affirmation and vitalisation of languages of

19 An approach to monolingualism in the U.S. and the question of standard English ideo-logies that is similar to the one adopted in this paper (concerning Brazilian Portuguese) canbe found in Wiley and Lukes (1996). They compare and contrast two particularly acceptedideologies in the United States: the monolingualism ideology that denies the importance ofnative and immigrant languages; and the standard English ideology, that is used to positionspeakers of different varieties of the same language within a social hierarchy. Their articlediscusses the connection between assumptions underlying linguistic ideologies and othersocial ideologies related to individualism and social mobility through education.


minority groups. But it is not possible to propose the creation of bilingualschools, in the case of stigmatised varieties of Portuguese, because weare not talking about ‘minorities’ in a strict sense, since speakers of non-standard Brazilian Portuguese are the majority of the population. However,“the whole notion of language minority has more to do with power thanwith numbers” (Hornberger, 1998: 453).

Nonetheless, in both cases, the ideal educational system is the one thatcelebrates rather than tolerates the linguistic diversity. Since “the languagepolicy of the school system is both a result of (. . .) pressures (. . .) and asource of pressure itself” (Spolsky, 1978: 64), it is possible to turn thispowerful pressure to a positive direction.

Finally, in the future, the keyword to the formulation of a positivelanguage policy in Brazil seems to be respect: respect towards speakersof other languages, respect concerning different varieties of Portuguese,respect to one’s own (legitimate) variety. And this kind of respect-basedlanguage policy is something that Brazil has never seen before.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A previous version of this paper was presented in a session of the Hillaryterm Seminar in the Centre for Brazilian Studies, University of Oxford.I would like to thank the audience, who offered interesting comments.Special thanks to Cristina Martins Fargetti and Gilvan Müller de Oliveira.I would like also to thank two anonymous reviewers, whose commentsgreatly improved this text.

The research that originated this paper was supported by CAPES(BEX0095/02-8).

REFERENCES

Aiwá, Geraldo Marques (1997). Escola Apurinã: uma experiência de revitalização dalíngua indígena. [Apurinã School: An experience for the revitalisation of the indigenouslanguage.] In Wilmar D’Angelis & Juracilda Veiga (Eds), Leitura e escrita em escolasindígenas [Reading and writing in indigenous schools] (pp. 209–212). Campinas: ALB,Mercado de Letras.

Anchieta, Joseph de (1595). Arte de grammatica da lingua mais usada na costa do Brasil[Art of grammar of the most used language on the coast of Brazil]. Coimbra, n.p.

Bagno, Marcos (2002a). Preconceito lingüístico – o que é, como se faz [Linguisticprejudice: What it is and how it does], 16th edition. São Paulo: Loyola.

Bagno, Marcos (2002b). Cassandra, Fênix e outros mitos. [Cassandra, Phoenix and othermyths.] In Carlos Alberto Faraco (Ed), Estrangeirismos – guerras em torno da língua[Foreign terms – language wars], 2nd edition (pp. 49–83). São Paulo: Parábola.


Barbour, Stephen (2002). Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Luxembourg: The total coinci-dence of nations and speech communities? In Stephen Barbour & Cathie Carmichael(Eds), Language and nationalism in Europe (pp. 151–167). Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Baugh, John (1999). Out of the mouths of slaves: African-American language andeducational malpractice. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.

Bessa Freire, José (1983). Da ‘fala boa’ ao português na Amazônia brasileira. [From ‘goodspeech’ to Portuguese in Brazilian Amazonia.] Ameríndia, 8 (quoted in Oliveira, 2002).

Cagliari, Luiz Carlos (1989). Alfabetização e Lingüística. [Literacy and Linguistics.] SãoPaulo: Scipione.

Cagliari, Luiz Carlos (1992). O acordo de unificação ortográfica. [The Accord of spellingunification.] Estudos lingüísticos XXI. Anais de seminários do GEL [Linguistc StudiesXXI. Proceedings of GEL Seminars], Vol. I, pp. 518–525. Jaú: Fundação EducacionalDr Raul Bauab, GEL.

Cagliari, Luiz Carlos (1996). Como não fazer uma reforma ortográfica. O acordo deunificação das ortografias de Língua Portuguesa. [How not to do a spelling reform. TheAccord of unification of Portuguese orthographies.] Letras, 15(1–2), 81–98 (Campinas:Instituto de Letras, PUCCAMP).

Cavalcanti, Marilda C. (1996). Collusion, resistance and reflexivity: Indigenous teachereducation in Brazil. Linguistics and Education, 8(2), 175–188.

Faraco, Carlos Alberto (2002). Guerras em torno da língua – questões de políticalingüística. [Language wars – questions of language policy.] In Carlos Alberto Faraco(Ed), Estrangeirismos – guerras em torno da língua [Foreign terms – language wars],2nd edition (pp. 37–47). São Paulo: Parábola.

Fargetti, Cristina Martins (2002). Escrita em Língua Juruna: Desafios e Parcerias. [Writingin Juruna: Challenges and partnership.] In A.S.A.C. Cabral & A.D. Rodrigues (Eds),Atas do I Encontro Internacional do Grupo de Trabalho sobre Línguas Indígenas daANPOLL [Proceedings of the I International Meeting of the ANPOLL’s IndigenousLanguages Workgroup], Tome 2. Belém: Editora Universitária.

Fiorin, José Luiz (2002). Considerações em torno do Projeto de Lei 1676/99. [Considera-tions concerning the Projected Law 1676/99.] In Carlos Alberto Faraco (Ed), Estrangeir-ismos – guerras em torno da língua [Foreign terms – language wars], 2nd edition(pp. 107–125). São Paulo: Parábola.

Fischer, Steven Roger (2001). A history of language. London: Reaktion Books.Garcez, Pedro M. (1995). The debatable 1990 Luso-Brazilian Orthographic Accord.

Language Problems and Language Planning, 19(2), 151–178.Garcez, Pedro M. & Zilles, Ana Maria S. (2002). Estrangeirismos – desejos e ameaças.

[Foreign terms – desires and menaces.] In Carlos Alberto Faraco (Ed), Estrangeirismos– guerras em torno da língua [Foreign terms – language wars], 2nd edition (pp. 15–36).São Paulo: Parábola.

Grupioni, Luís Donisete Benzi (1997). De alternativo a oficial: sobre a (im)possibilidadeda educação escolar indígena no Brasil. [From alternative to official: The (im)possibilityof indigenous formal education in Brazil.] In Wilmar D’Angelis & Juracilda Veiga (Eds),Leitura e escrita em escolas indígenas [Reading and writing in indigenous schools](pp. 184–201). Campinas: ALB, Mercado de Letras.

Hornberger, Nancy H. (1998). Language policy, language education, language rights:Indigenous, immigrant, and international perspectives. Language in Society, 27(4),439–458.


Judge, Anne (2002). France: ‘One state, one nation, one language?’ In Stephen Barbour& Cathie Carmichael (Eds), Language and nationalism in Europe (pp. 44–82). Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Kahn, Marina (1994). ‘Educação indígena’ versus ‘educação para índios’: sim, a discussãodeve continuar . . . . [‘Indigenous education’ versus ‘education for Indians’: Yes, thedebate must continue . . . .] Em Aberto 63: 137–144.

Lippi-Green, Rosina (1997). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimina-tion in the United States. New York: Routledge.

Mar-Molinero, Clare (2002). The Iberian Peninsula: Conflicting linguistic nationalisms.In Stephen Barbour & Cathie Carmichael (Eds), Language and nationalism in Europe(pp. 83–104). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Midlin, Betty (1997). Texto e Leitura na escola indígena. [Text and Reading in indigenousschools.] In Wilmar D’Angelis & Juracilda Veiga (Eds), Leitura e escrita em escolasindígenas [Reading and writing in indigenous schools] (pp. 53–80). Campinas: ALB,Mercado de Letras.

Monte, Nietta Lindenberg (1996). Escolas da floresta: entre o passado oral e o presenteletrado. [Forest schools: Between the oral past and literate present.] Rio de Janeiro:Multiletra.

Moura, Heronides Maurílio de Melo (2002). A língua popular tem razões que osgramáticos desconhecem. [Popular language has reasons that grammarians ignore.] InFábio Lopes da Silva & Heronides M. de Melo Moura (Eds), O direito à fala – a questãodo preconceito lingüístico [The right of speaking – The question of linguistic prejudice],2nd, revised edition (pp. 75–82). Florianópolis: Insular.

Oliveira, Gilvan Müller de (2002). Brasileiro fala português: monolingüismo e preconceitolingüístico. [Brazilians speak Portuguese: Monolingualism and linguistic prejudice.] InFábio Lopes da Silva & Heronides M. de Melo Moura (Eds), O direito à fala – a questãodo preconceito lingüístico [The right of speaking – The question of linguistic prejudice],2nd, revised edition (pp. 83–92). Florianópolis: Insular.

Rickford, John R. (1999). African American vernacular English: Features, evolution,educational implications. Oxford: Blackwell.

Rodrigues, Aryon Dall’Igna (1985). The present state of the study of Brazilian Indianlanguages. In Harriet E. Klein & Louisa R. Stark (Eds), South American Indianlanguages: Retrospect and prospect (pp. 405–439). Austin: University of Texas Press.

Rodrigues, Aryon Dall’Igna (1998). Línguas Indígenas. descobertas e perdas. Parte II[Indigenous languages: discoveries and losses. Part II.] Porantim (Dec), 5.

Rodrigues, Aryon Dall’Igna (1999). Macro-Jê. In R.M.W. Dixon & Alexandra Aikhen-vald (Eds), The Amazonian languages (pp. 164–206). Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Rodrigues, Aryon Dall’Igna (n.d.). As línguas gerais sul-americanas. [South-Americangeneral languages.] Retrieved from http://www.unb.br/il/liv/papers/aryon.htm on 1February 2003).

Ruzza, Carlo (2002). Language and nationalism in Italy: Language as a weak marker ofidentity. In Stephen Barbour & Cathie Carmichael (Eds), Language and nationalism inEurope (pp. 168–182). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Schmitz, John Robert (2002). O Projeto de Lei no. 1676/99 na imprensa de São Paulo”.[The Projected Law 1676/99 in newspapers from São Paulo.] In Carlos Alberto Faraco(Ed), Estrangeirismos – guerras em torno da língua [Foreign terms – language wars],2nd edition (pp. 85–106). São Paulo: Parábola.


Silva, Fábio Lopes da & Moura, Heronides Maurílio de Melo (2002). Introdução. [Intro-duction.] In Fábio Lopes da Silva & Heronides M. de Melo Moura (Eds), O direito à fala– a questão do preconceito lingüístico [The right of speaking – the question of linguisticprejudice], 2nd, revised edition (pp. 9–15). Florianópolis: Insular.

Smitherman, Geneva (2000). Talkin’ that talk: Language, culture, and education in AfricanAmerica. London: Routledge.

Spolsky, Bernard (1978). Educational linguistics – an introduction. Rowley, Massachu-setts: Newbury House Publishers.

Vikør, Lars S. (2002). Northern Europe: Languages as prime markers of ethnic and nationalidentity. In Stephen Barbour & Cathie Carmichael (Eds), Language and nationalism inEurope (pp. 105–129). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wiley, Terence G. & Marguerite Lukes (1996). English-only and standard Englishideologies in the US. TESOL Quarterly, 30(3), 511–535.

Zilles, Ana Maria Stahl (2002). Ainda os equívocos no combate aos estrangeirismos. [Stillthe misunderstandings in the combat against foreign terms.] In Carlos Alberto Faraco(Ed), Estrangeirismos – guerras em torno da língua [Foreign terms – language wars],2nd edition (pp. 143–161). São Paulo: Parábola.

Departamento de LingüísticaFaculdade de Ciências e LetrasUniversidade Estadual Paulista – UNESPCampus de AraraquaraBrazilE-mail: [email protected]

[email protected]

Date post:	27-Nov-2014
Category:	Documents
Upload:	serromerro
View:	143 times
Download:	1 times

Language Planing in Brasil

Documents