Tolerance and openness in the face of linguistic variety, our recommendation

in the Field, and the språkdiskussioner is important in democratic discourse. That is why we are pleased to Lars Melin, in his op-ed piece addressing the issue of loaded words, and språkpoliseri, despite the fact that the language council of sweden has a couple of raw sweeps. The Swedish language council, an agency of the agency the Institute for language and folklore, has the mission to carry the "language" on a scientific basis, and we would like to describe the way Words work.

the English language is our common property, and all of us who use the language of the day, contributing to the development of speaking and writing. At the same time, each individual the English speaking one, among millions, which makes every individual the effect is very small. All, therefore, the power of one's own, private terms. There are also those who want to increase their influence by affecting the other's language. However, there is a big difference between getting the word out any way you want, and getting others to express themselves as they wish.

We believe that an important part of the democratic conversation, is to be negotiated and argued about the word's meanings and associations. The main point is not always the choice of words, in and of itself, but to the opinions and arguments of the get together.

Some have the task to influence the others ' choice of words. The teacher should, of course, to have a constructive feedback on their students ' use of language, and the editors will work on your skribenters lyrics. However, in other cases, the comments made on the language to be perceived as unwelcome censorship, or any attempt to exercise social control. This is the behavior of the Lars Melin, respond to, and, in particular, the skambeläggande that often go with it. In our language the recommendations, we'll have to do this. The words have not only meanings, but also connotations, for example, to a group of people. It does not apply only to the person who is named, but also to the one who calls. The writer uses the time of designation of a group of people who are at risk of being perceived as hostile to the group.

People can have different connotations to the name, and the associations can change very quickly. This means that you will not be able to draw conclusions about a person's humanity, solely on the basis of his choice of words, in order for a person to use an older one, the time of the designation might have missed out on the connotations have changed, or that the old name is misleading. And, conversely, any use of the last names, and yet to express a disparaging opinion of the group, which is referred to. If you would like to make an informed judgment about someone's values, you should take into account more factors than what the words the person uses.

people who still want to hold on to his choice of words is free to do so, but it is hardly a request to be released from hearing the criticism. That's the price we pay for democracy.

the Tolerance of, and openness to language diversity is therefore one of the most basic of the recommendation from the language council of sweden and, in particular, that in many cases there are no words that will work well in all situations and please everyone. Those who want to learn more about how we think and what we would recommend in these matters, you can read more about the Frågelådan on our web site, for example, the answer to the question ”what can I do with a charged word for a group of people?” and ”Who controls language?”

the language council of sweden has a mandate to make recommendations. However, the språkvården have not the power to control whether the advice is followed. Our recommendations are based on the state values, and the terms of the public language, not private. As a starting point for the recommendations is the use of the public language, such as the professionals and the authorities should not infringe upon the citizens. Therefore, the recommendations included, among other things, consideration as to how the teams themselves would like to be referred to as the.

I think that is an important part of the democratic conversation, is to be negotiated and argued about the word's meanings and associations. The main point is not always the choice of words, in and of itself, but to the opinions and arguments of the get together. They will feel belittled by other people's use of language should be able to give it. How will we be able to know when someone's words make anyone else sick? Those who still want to hold on to his choice of words is free to do so, but it is hardly a request to be released from hearing the criticism. That's the price we pay for democracy.