The deadline for comments is today, October 26. The Ethics Committee will continue to use this blog to post updates about possible changes to the Common Rule.

Individuals can also submit their own comments through October 26.

International workshop: Language Ethics as a Field of Inquiry

November 11-12, 2011

ITHQ (3535 St. Denis), Montreal

Convenors: Daniel Weinstock and Yael Peled

The workshop “Language Ethics as a Field of Inquiry” is an innovative and a first-of-its-kind attempt to identify, conceptualise and explore the social and political ethics of human language as a distinct field of intellectual inquiry, similarly to other distinct domains of ethics such as the ethics of war, bioethics, business ethics and environmental ethics.

The workshop brings together diverse scholarly perspectives from leading experts in politics, philosophy, linguistics, history and economics, in order to explore language ethics in a strong transdisciplinary environment. It therefore sets out to identify the ways in which the intrinsic plurality and complexity of this emerging field of inquiry may be approached, defined and studied in a systematic and dedicated manner.

Programme:

Friday November 11

9:00            Greetings and Opening Remarks

Session I: Language Ethics – Definitions, Contexts and Approaches

9:30            Dan Avnon (Political Science, Hebrew University)

What is (or ‘are’) Language Ethics?

10:15             Arash Abizadeh (Political Science, McGill)

Words versus the Public Thing: Verbal Threats to the Rousseauist Republic

11:00                   Break

11:15             Luisa Maffi (Terralingua)

Earth of Languages, Languages of the Earth: Towards a Biocultural Ethics for the World’s Languages

12.00                   Lunch

Session II: The Normative Theorising of Language Policy

13:00           Idil Boran (Philosophy, York)

Language, Institutions and Political Theory

13:45             Jacob T. Levy (Political Science, McGill)

The Language of Manners and the Manners of Language

14:30                    Break

Session III: Linguistic Justice

15:00                   Alan Patten (Political Science, Princeton)

Language Preservation, Fairness and Language Rights

15:45             Helder de Schutter (Political and Social Theory, Leuven)

Intralinguistic Justice

Saturday November 12

Session IV: Global Linguistic Justice

9:30            Suzanne Romaine (English, Oxford)

Towards Sustainable and Equitable Human Development: Why Language Matters

10:15             Daniel Weinstock (Philosophy, Montreal)

Is Language Death Necessarily Unjust? Three Arguments

11:00             Break

11:15             Tom Ricento (Education, Calgary)

Language Policy, Political Theory and English as a ‘Global’ Language

12:00                   Lunch

Session V: The Economics of Linguistic Diversity

13:00            David Robichaud (Philosophy, Ottawa)

Language Rights and the Costs of Language Diversity

13:45             Francois Grin (Economics, Geneva)

Is “Diversity” an Operational Concept for Language Policy?

14:30                   Break

Session VI: Language Ethics as a Field of Inquiry

15:00            General Discussion

16:30            Conclusion

Participation and registration:

Registration is free of charge but is essential, since the number of available places is limited. To register, please send a message expressing your interest toyael.a.peled@gmail.com. For directions and map of the workshop venue see http://www.ithq.qc.ca/en/hotel/pour-nous-joindre.php.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has announced that the federal government is contemplating various ways of enhancing the regulations overseeing research on human subjects. Before making changes to the regulations – which have been in place since 1991 and are often referred to as the Common Rule – the government is seeking the public’s input on an array of issues related to the ethics, safety, and oversight of human research. The changes under consideration can be found in an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), Human Subjects Research Protections: Enhancing Protections for Research Subjects and Reducing Burden, Delay, and Ambiguity for Investigators, published in the July 25 Federal Register.  The proposed changes are designed to strengthen protections for human research subjects.

The OHRP has provided an overview webpage of the proposed changes and also a table highlighting how the newly proposed rules will change existing policies. The government is presently soliciting comments on the proposed changes from the general public.

There has been national news coverage of this topic, and the LSA is examining how it might best respond to the proposal. Members of the LSA can also, of course, submit comments on their own as members of the general public. According the the OHRP website, “The ANPRM comment period closes 5:00 p.m. Monday, September 26, 2011.” (This appears to be sixty days after the posting of the proposal in the Federal Register, which occurred on July 26 rather than July 25 as indicated in the quote above).

Update: It appears that the deadline for comments has been extended to October 26.

The LSA Ethics Statement that was approved in 2009 was intended to be applicable to the whole field of linguistics. Some members of one subcommunity of linguists, those involved in forensic linguistics consulting, believed that the special ethical considerations of their work could be best captured in a more targeted statement, a draft of which we present here for comment. While there may be attempts to incorporate the ethical principles embodied in this draft into the general ethics statement in the future, it is proposed here as a possible amendment to the existing statement.

After a period of comment of at least six weeks, the comments will be reviewed and the LSA Ethics Committee  will determine how to proceed. If the range of comments only suggests a need for relatively straightforward revisions, these will be made and the revised statement will be sent to the LSA Executive Committee for review and, potentially, approval. If the comments suggest a need for more extensive changes, a new draft may instead be posted on this blog for a second round of review.

The primary compiler of the current draft of the statement is Ronald R. Butters, with contributions from Janet Ainsworth, Philip Gaines, Tim Grant, Jeff Kaplan, Geoffrey Nunberg, Roger Shuy, and Larry Solan. The statement is broken down into the four sections, and we request that comments are directed at the section that they are most closely related to.

Questions about the process for commenting on and approving the statement should be directed to Jeff Good, chair of the Ethics Committee for 2011. The Ethics Committee welcomes additional proposals to either revise or amend the Ethics Statement, and those interested should also feel free to contact the Ethics Committee chair.

B. Linguists who are engaged in forensic linguistic consulting will not enter into any arrangements in which compensation is dependent on the outcome of the case.

C. In appropriate cases (usually where clients are unable to pay full fee), consulting linguists may provide their services at reduced-fee rates or without charge, not only for the sake of the advancement of science but also as a duty to linguistic science, society, and the judicial system.

D. Testimony and reports must be based upon the linguist’s professional knowledge and expertise, and upon meticulous research that uses established and accepted scientific linguistic knowledge and methodology.

E. Consultants will not add to, delete from, or otherwise alter their reports at the request or suggestion of the retaining attorney if doing so would materially affect the accuracy or reliability of their analyses or conclusions. If material within a report must be deleted because it is legally privileged or inadmissible, consultants should carefully consider whether such deletions materially affect the validity of their analyses or conclusions, and they will inform the retaining attorney if the emended report would be inaccurate or misleading to the fact-finding process.

B. In making their analyses, consultants will take due account of—and act diligently in accordance with—the technical and professional methods available at the time and their appropriateness to the purposes of the inquiry and the data under examination.

C. In reporting in cases where judgments concerning the consultant’s level of certainty of an opinion or conclusion is scientifically possible, consultants will indicate where their opinion or conclusion lies in relation to the range of judgments, if any.

D. Consultants will maintain awareness of the limits of forensic linguistic analysis and of their own knowledge and competencies when agreeing to carry out work, making certain that they possess or can with certainty acquire the specific professional knowledge and skills at the level necessary to ensure that their linguistic analysis is performed at the highest level of competency.