Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
FAQs
Introduction
Efficient Communication as an Object of Study
References

Towards a general analytical framework

Profile image of Francois GRINFrancois GRIN

2008

https://doi.org/10.1075/AILA.20.08GAZ
visibility

…

description

20 pages

link

1 file

Abstract

This electronic file may not be altered in any way. The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only. Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible to members (students and staff) only of the author’s/s’ institute. For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com). Please contact rights@benjamins.nl or consult our website: www.benjamins.com

FAQs

sparkles

AI

How do the concepts of efficiency and fairness apply to multilingual communication?add

The paper illustrates that efficiency focuses on optimal resource allocation, while fairness assesses the distributive impacts across linguistic groups in multilingual communication.

What methodologies support the evaluation of language policies in multilingual contexts?add

This research highlights the use of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) and cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) to evaluate the efficiency and distributive consequences of language policies.

What indicators are suggested for measuring effectiveness in multilingual communication?add

The analysis emphasizes the use of three main communicational intents—informative, cooperative, and strategic—along with tailored effectiveness indicators for internal and external communication.

How does the Kaldor-Hicks criterion inform language policy evaluation?add

The Kaldor-Hicks criterion allows for policy evaluation based on potential compensation feasibility, ensuring that at least one group benefits without harming others in the distribution.

What challenges exist in assessing the distributive effects of language policies?add

Challenges include accurately identifying affected groups and measuring the symbolic and material impacts of communication shifts on different linguistic communities.

Related papers

Critical Review of Analytic Techniques
Mandeep Dhami

2016 European Intelligence and Security Informatics Conference (EISIC), 2016

Full bibliographic details must be given when referring to, or quoting from full items including the author's name, the title of the work, publication details where relevant (place, publisher, date), pagination, and for theses or dissertations the awarding institution, the degree type awarded, and the date of the award.

View PDFchevron_right
This article h s not been copyedited and formatt d. The final ver ion may differ from this version
Chantal Guillemette

2013

dm d.aspetjournals.org D ow nloaded from DMD #53876

View PDFchevron_right
This article has not been copyedited and formatted. The final version may differ from this version
Stuart Maudsley

2016

m olpharm.aspetjournals.org D ow nloaded from MOL #095224 2

View PDFchevron_right
This Paper is Circulated for Discussion Purposes and Its Contents Should Be Considered Preliminary and
Cathryn Hart

A multitude of opinions has been propounded to explain how the Internet can be exploited by commercial organisations. For the most part they are speculative, visionary or promotional. This work seeks to redress the balance by reporting on an empirical research project that has recently been conducted into the adoption of the Internet within the UK retail sector. More specifically, the research presented in this paper reports on the application of multi-variate statistical techniques to a large set of questionnaire responses, with a view to critically evaluating the factors that affect the adoption of the Internet. It has been shown that certain factors are far more significant than others, in influencing the adoption decision. In particular, it has been demonstrated that operating in an appropriate market sector and having a positive view of the viability of the Internet are of particular significance. Furthermore, the importance of developing a coherent and integrated Internet strategy, the need for senior management commitment, and the presence of an appropriate infrastructure and development capability are also highlighted. In conclusion, the paper summarises the implications of these findings for the development of retail strategy. To derive a number of distinct factors that are likely to affect the adoption of the Internet. To establish current levels of Internet adoption amongst the UK's leading retailers. To explore the nature of the relationship between each of the derived factors and the resultant level of Internet adoption. To evaluate which of the derived factors is most influential in determining the resultant level of Internet adoption. It was envisaged that, by addressing these four issues, important insights into how retail organisations should approach the task of developing an Internet strategy might be generated. The following sections of this paper describe and discuss the primary research that was undertaken to explore these issues.

View PDFchevron_right
Please note that this is an author-produced PDF of an article accepted for publication following peer review. The definitive publisher-authenticated version is available on the publisher Web site
Martine Pugnière

We present in this paper the advantages of the latent class vector model approach in the analysis of preference ratings. We illustrate the practical application of this methodology on the basis of a preference study of smoked salmons in European countries. A set of 30 samples was selected spanning the characteristic variability of cold-smoked salmon available in six European countries (Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom). Consumers from the main countries of consumption (Belgium, France, Italy, Germany and the United Kingdom) were asked to rate the acceptability of each product. A quantitative descriptive analysis with a trained panel and physical and chemical measurements of smoked salmons were also conducted. Using a latent class vector model approach, it was possible to identify different classes of homogeneous preferences. Each of these classes was characterised by the country of origin of the consumers, sensory descriptions and the physical and chemical properties of the products.

View PDFchevron_right
analytic Review
Sandra Stith

2014

This is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript as accepted for publication. The publisher-formatted version may be available through the publisher’s web site or your institution’s library. This item was retrieved from the K-State Research Exchange (K-REx), the institutional repository of Kansas State University. K-REx is available at

View PDFchevron_right
8 lloyd mete and grant 2009.pdf
Monica Grant

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues. Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or institutional repository. Authors requiring further information regarding Elsevier's archiving and manuscript policies are encouraged to visit: http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

View PDFchevron_right
This article has not been copyedited a d formatted. The final ver ion may differ from this version
Guido Mannaioni

2016

jpet.aspetjournals.org D ow nloaded from JPET #80481

View PDFchevron_right
The views expressed and the conclusions reached in this publication are those of the author and not necessarily those of persons consulted. RIRDC shall not be responsible in any way whatsoever to any person who relies in whole or in part on the contents of this report. This publication is copyrig...
Caroline Mohammed

2000

The views expressed and the conclusions reached in this publication are those of the author and not necessarily those of persons consulted. RIRDC shall not be responsible in any way whatsoever to any person who relies in whole or in part on the contents of this report.

View PDFchevron_right
Analytical Method Development and Validation for the Academic Researcher
Ashim Sen

Analytical Letters, 1999

and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution , reselling , loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

View PDFchevron_right

References (51)

  1. Ammon, U. (ed.) 2001. The Dominance of English as a Language of Science. Effects on other lan- guages and language communities. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  2. Arnsperger, C. & van Parijs, P. 2000. Ethique économique et sociale. Paris: La Découverte. Boadway, R.W. & Bruce, N. 1984. Welfare Economics. Oxford: Blackwell.
  3. Boardman, A.E., Greenberg, D.H., Vining, A.R. & Weimer, D.L. 2006. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and practice, 3rd edn. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall.
  4. Brent, R. J. 1997. Applied Cost-Benefit Analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  5. Sécurité/insécurité linguistique. Terrains et approches diversifiés, Actes de la 5° Table Ronde du Moufia. Paris: L'Harmattan/A.U.F.
  6. Carey, J.W. 1992. Communication as Culture: Essays on media and society. London: Routledge.
  7. Carli, A. & Calaresu, E. 2007. Language and science. In Handbook of Language and Communica- tion: Diversity and Change, M. Hellinger & A. Pauwels (eds.), 523-52. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  8. Charaudeau, P. 1995. Ce que communiquer veut dire. Sciences humaines 51: 20-23.
  9. Church, J. & King, I. 1993. Bilingualism and network externalities. Canadian Journal of Econom- ics 27(2): 335-45.
  10. de Briey, L. & Van Parijs, P. 2002. La justice linguistique comme justice coopérative. Revue de philosophie économique 5: 5-37.
  11. de Schutter, H. 2007 Language policy and political philosophy: On the emerging linguistic jus- tice debate. Language Problems & Language Planning 31(1): 1-23.
  12. De Swaan 2001 Words of the World. The global language system. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  13. Dunn, W.N. 2004. Public Policy Analysis: An introduction, 3rd edn. Upper Saddle River NJ: Pren- tice Hall.
  14. Fidrmuc, J. & Ginsburgh, V. 2007. Languages in the European Union: The quest for equality and its cost. European Economic Review 51 : 1351-1369.
  15. Fidrmuc, J., Ginsburgh, V. & Weber, S. 2004. Le français, deuxième langue de l'Union européenne? Économie publique 15(2): 43-63.
  16. Francard, M. (ed.) 1993. L'insécurité linguistique dans les communautés francophones périphériques. Cahiers de l'Institut de linguistique de Louvain 19.
  17. Gazzola, M. 2006a. La gestione del multilinguismo nell'Unione europea. In Le sfide della politica linguistica di oggi: Fra la valorizzazione del multilingualismo migratorio locale e le istanze del plurilinguismo europeo, A. Carli (ed.), 17-117. Milan: FrancoAngeli.
  18. Gazzola, M. 2006b. Managing multilingualism in the European Union: Language policy evalua- tion for the European Parliament. Language Policy 5(4): 393-417.
  19. Ginsburgh, V. & Weber, S. 2005. Language disenfranchisement in the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies 43(2): 273-86.
  20. Grin, F. 1994. L'identification des bénéfices de l'aménagement linguistique: La langue comme actif naturel. Sociolinguistic Studies and Language Planning -XVI Colloque annuel de l'association de linguistique des provinces atlantiques, Université de Moncton, 67-101.
  21. Grin, F. (ed.) 1996. Economic Approaches to Language and Language Planning. Theme issue No. 121 of the International Journal of the Sociology of Language.
  22. Grin, F. 1997. Gérer le plurilinguisme européen: approche économique au problème de choix. Sociolinguistica 11: 1-15.
  23. Grin, F. 1999. Supply and demand as analytical tools in language. In Exploring the Economics of Language, Breton, A. (ed.), 31-62. Ottawa: Canadian Heritage.
  24. Grin, F. 2001. On effectiveness and efficiency in education: Operationalizing the concepts. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik 43: 87-97.
  25. Grin, F. 2003. Language planning and economics. Current Issues in Language Planning 4(1): 1-66.
  26. Grin, F. 2004a. L'anglais comme lingua franca: Questions de coût et d' équité. Commentaire sur l'article de Philippe Van Parijs. Économie publique 15(2): 33-41.
  27. Grin, F. 2004b. L' élargissement de l'Union européenne: Questions de coût et justice linguistique. Panoramiques 69: 97-104.
  28. Grin, F. 2005. L' enseignement des langues étrangères comme politique publique. Rapport au Haut Conseil de l' évaluation de l' école 19.
  29. Grin, F. & Vaillancourt, F. 1997. The economics of multilingualism: Overview and analytical framework. In Multilingualism and Multilingual Communities, W. Grabe (ed.), 43-65. Cambridge: CUP.
  30. Grin, F. & Vaillancourt, F. 1999. The Cost-effectiveness Evaluation of Minority Language Policies: Case studies on Wales, Ireland and the Basque Country. Flensburg: European Centre for Minority Issues.
  31. House, J. & Rehbein, J. 2004. What is 'multilingual communication'?. In Multilingual communi- cation, J. House and J. Rehbein (eds.), 1-18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  32. Jernudd, B. H. 1971. Notes on economics analysis for solving language problems. In Can Lan- guage be Planned?, J. Rubin & B. Jernudd (eds.), 263-76. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii.
  33. Just, R. E., Hueth, D. L. & Schmitz, A. 2004. The Welfare Economics of Public Policy: A practical approach to project and policy evaluation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  34. Kymlicka, W. 2002. Contemporary Political Philosophy: An introduction, 2nd edn. Oxford: OUP.
  35. Kymlicka, W. & Patten, A. (eds). 2003. Language Rights and Political Theory. Oxford: OUP.
  36. Lamizet, B. & Silem, A. 1997. Dictionnaire encyclopédique des sciences de l'information et de la communication. Paris: Ellipses.
  37. Levin, H.M. & MacEwan, P.J. 2001. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Methods and applications, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
  38. Moulin, H. 2003. Fair Division and Collective Welfare. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
  39. Mueller, D.C. 2003. Public Choice III. Cambridge: CUP.
  40. Mühlhäusler, P. & Damania, R. 2004. Economic costs and benefits of australian indigenous lan- guages. Discussion Paper Prepared for Australian Government Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Services (ATSIS), University of Adelaide.
  41. Myles, G.D. 1995. Public Economics. Cambridge: CUP.
  42. Patrinos, H.A. & Velez, E. 1995. Costs and benefits of bilingual education in Guatemala. World Bank, HCO Dissemination Notes, Washington.
  43. Paulré, B. 1993. L' organisation entre information et communication. In Dictionnaire critique de la communication, L. Sfez (ed.), 519-68. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
  44. Pool, J. 1991. The official language problem. American Political Science Review 25(2): 485-514.
  45. Pool, J. 1996. Optimal language regimes for the European Union. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 121: 159-79.
  46. Ricento, T. 2006. Language policy: Theory and practice -An introduction. In An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and method, T. Ricento (ed.), 10-23. Oxford: Blackwell.
  47. Rossi, P.H., Lipsey, M.W. & Freeman, H.E. 2004. Evaluation: A systematic approach, 7th edn. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
  48. Vaillancourt, F. 1995. Economic costs and benefits of the official languages: Some observations. In Official Languages and the Economy. New Canadian Perspectives, Department of Cana- dian Heritage, 103-18. Ottawa: Canadian Heritage Series.
  49. van Parijs, P. 2004a. Europe's linguistic challenge. Archives européennes de sociologie 45(1): 113-54.
  50. van Parijs, P. 2004b. L'anglais comme lingua franca de l'Union européenne: Impératif de soli- darité, source d'injustice, facteur de déclin? Économie publique 15(2): 13-32.
  51. Zajac, E.E. 1995. Political Economy of Fairness. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

Related papers

No part of this publication may be reproduced. Stored in retrieval systems or transmitted, in any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher
Dr. Ved nath Jha

Information contained in this book has been published by International Center for Scientific Research and Development and has been obtained by its author from sources believed to be trustworthy and are correct to the best of their knowledge. However, the Publisher and its Author shall in no event for any errors, omissions or damages arising out of use of this information and specifically disclaim any implied warranties or merchantabilities or any particular use. Disputes if any are subject to Head Office only.

View PDFchevron_right
Management-Summary 1 Introduction 1 2 Our work approach 1
Christian Lebelhuber

2014

The Copyright for the self created and presented contents as well as objects are always reserved for the author. Duplication, usage or any change of the contents in these slides is prohibited without any explicit noted consent of the author. In case of conflicts between the electronic version and the original paper version provided by E-Bridge Consulting, the latter will prevail. E-Bridge Consulting GmbH disclaims liability for any direct, indirect, consequential or incidental damages that may result from the use of the information or data, or from the inability to use the information or data contained in this document. The contents of this presentation may only be transmitted to third parties in entirely and provided with copyright notice, prohibition to change, electronic versions' validity notice and disclaimer.

View PDFchevron_right
Conclusions and policy implications
Jennifer Brinkerhoff

1990

People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit the DOI to the publisher's website. • The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review. • The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.

View PDFchevron_right
Analytical Framework
Nani Teig

IEA research for education, 2024

The present book adopts a common approach in terms of theories, conceptualizations, and methodology throughout all chapters. The primary objective of this chapter is to describe the common methodology that serves as a foundation for each chapter. While the individual chapters can be read independently, it is important to understand that they all share common methodologies and assumptions, which will be thoroughly outlined in this chapter. For instance, a key aspect of the methodology is the uniformity in data preparation across all chapters. Furthermore, this chapter also aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and its design. As we progress through the chapter, the overall methodology employed in the book will be examined in greater detail. This examination will cover various aspects of the methodology, including the reliability and validity of the constructs examined in the chapters, the process of data preparation, and the analytical approaches employed. By presenting a clear and coherent understanding of the shared methodology, readers will be better equipped to appreciate the interconnectedness of the chapters and the holistic approach taken in this book.

View PDFchevron_right
Online Deposited in DRO : 05 January 2010 Version of attached le : Published Version Peer-review status of attached
Lyudmila Mihaylova

2014

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.

View PDFchevron_right

Cited by

Is ELF more effective and fair than translation? An evaluation of the EU's multilingual regime
Francois GRIN

International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 2013

The management of multilingualism in the European Union (EU) has become an increasingly debated issue. Some argue that ‘English as a lingua franca’ (ELF) should help solve many of the attendant challenges. The claim is sometimes made that ELF, as a multilingual way of using English, is no longer dependent upon the practices and representations of native speakers and therefore poses no threat to linguistic diversity or to fairness. In this article, we question the relevance of the concept of ELF from a language policy perspective, showing that the socioeconomic implications of using ELF are no different from those of using English only. We examine the costs associated with alternative language regimes for the EU, showing that a reduction in the direct costs of European multilingualism through the imposition of a single language merely shifts costs towards citizens whose mother tongue is not English, and that re‐labelling it as ‘ELF’ makes no difference. The use of translation and int...

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved