Novita Setiawati
2201411150
201-202
LANGUAGE
POLICY AND PLANNING
1.
Definition
There
are many definitions about LPP. A frequently cited definition is Cooper’s:
“Language planning refers to deliberate efforts to influence the behavior of
others with respect to the acquisition, structure, or functional allocation of
their language codes” (1989, p. 45). Other definitions include what people do,
think and believe about language: “Language policy can be defined as the
combination of official decisions and prevailing public practices related to
language education and use” (McGroarty, 1997, p. 1). In other definitions there
is no place for the non-deliberate realm: “The match of national language
capacity to need” (Brecht & Walton, 1993, p. 3). Some definitions do not
limit the effects intended by policy intervention and encompass multiple kinds
of collective action: “the organized pursuit of solutions to language problems,
typically at the national level” (Fishman, 1973, pp. 23–4) and “authoritative
allocation of resources to language” (Fishman, 1994, p. 92). Importantly some
definitions (Neustupny, 1978, 1983) have also included even mundane practices
of individual language use.
2. The “Activity”
There
are six activities that are studied in LPP literature:
a.
Corpus
planning
Corpus planning refers
to norm selection and codification (characteristics or criteria of a ‘good’
language are established) and is usually undertaken by language experts,
resulting in dictionaries, grammars, literacy manuals, and pronunciation and
writing style guides. In other words, it is concerned with developing the ‘nuts
and bolts’ of language itself (its vocabulary, forms of pronunciation and
syntax), so that a language could indeed serve its designated function.
b.
Status
planning
Status planning is
concerned with official decisions about the appropriate use of a language. The
results of status planning are laws, clauses in constitutions
prescribing the official standing of languages, and regulations for
their use in public administration.
c.
Acquisition
planning
Acquisition planning (language-in-education)
typically describes the languages teaching policies of states. Foreign or
second language instruction can be motivated by humanistic rationales, by
economic interest calculations, by assessments about national security or
geo-political interest, or by responses to the needs, opportunities, and rights
of linguistic minorities.
d.
Usage
planning
Usage planning refers
to efforts to extend the communicative domains of a given language. This
usually occurs in opposition to a replacing language after political
reconstitution (administrative devolution, federalism, or national
independence) but in more extreme cases usage planning forms part of
regeneration efforts on behalf of dying languages.
e.
Prestige
planning
Prestige planning involves
elevating the esteem of a linguistic code. While this often accompanies status
planning, there is an ancient history of poetic, philosophical, and religious
involvement in attaching enhanced prestige to given codes that precedes formal
planning processes and sometimes contradicts them. The production of canonical
literature by poets, prose writers, and other cultural figures has effects that
can be usefully discussed as language planning.
f.
Discourse
planning
Discourse planning refers
to the influence and effect on people’s mental states, behaviors and belief
systems through the linguistically mediated ideological workings of
institutions, disciplines, and diverse social formations.
3. Approaches
Tollefson
(1991) introduced a distinction to characterize what he saw as two major
approaches to LPP: the neoclassical and the historical-structural. The major
differences between the neoclassical and the historical-structural approaches
are as follows (from Wiley 1996: 115):
1) The
unit of analysis employed: While the neoclassical approach focuses on
individual choices, the historical-structural pays attention to relationships
between groups.
2) The
role of the historical perspective: The neoclassical is more interested in the
current language situation; the historical-structural, in contrast, emphasizes
the role of socio-historical factors.
3) Criteria for evaluating plans and policies:
The neoclassical is primarily amoral in its outlook; policies are evaluated in
terms of how efficiently they achieve their goals. The historical-structural is
more sensitive to issue of domination, exploitation and oppression.
4) The role of the social scientist: Consistent
with its amoral outlook, the neoclassical assumes that the social scientist
must and can approach language problems in an apolitical manner. On the other
hand, the historical-structural views political stances as inescapable so that
‘those who avoid political questions inadvertently support the status quo’.
4. History
The
emergence of LPP as a coherent field was closely tied to the fact that newly
independent states in the postcolonial era (mainly Asian and African) were seen
as in need of appropriate modernization and development programs. For these
states, the concerns were multiple. The well-intentioned desire to contribute
towards programs that could help cultivate national solidarity whilst also
improving on standards of education and creating opportunities for economic
growth led linguists to position themselves as expert consultants with the
state as client.
As
a result of this desire to design programs that could contribute to public
policy objectives, a series of technical concepts and distinctions were
constructed that aimed to provide linguists with the theoretical vocabulary to
systematically approach and diagnose LPP-related issues. Examples include:
(i)
The idea of a rational model (Jernudd 1973), where alternative ways of tackling
a problem were carefully compared before settling on the optimal choice. This
approach assumed that LPP issues could be approached in terms of a cost-benefit
analysis.
(ii)
The distinction between status planning and corpus planning (Kloss 1969): the
former was concerned with official decisions about the appropriate use of a
language. The latter was concerned with developing the ‘nuts and bolts’ of
language itself (its vocabulary, forms of pronunciation and syntax), so that a
language could indeed serve its designated function.
(iii)
The distinction between processes of language selection, codification of the
selected language as standard or correct, elaboration of the language form
where necessary, and implementation to ensure that the standards were properly
adopted (Haugen 1966). These processes were typically understood to apply
sequentially, so that LPP would be pursued in a manner that was organized and
systematic.
There
is no disputing the fact that these concepts and distinctions, even today,
continue to serve as valuable tools when thinking about LPP. This is because,
at bottom, LPP involves making decisions about the desirability (or not) of
promoting some language practices over others. And all such decisions require
some appreciation of the possible relationships between forms of language and
their uses, and the ways in which these relationships might be influenced.
What
was problematic in this period, however, was the absence of a critical
orientation that might have otherwise prevented a number of assumptions from
going unquestioned, such as the notion that each nation-state would be ideally
served by having just one national language. As a consequence, these
assumptions often guided the enthusiastic articulation of solutions designed
along technocratic lines.
5. Challenges for LPP
One
significant challenge for LPP is to find ways of addressing multiculturalism.
Where LPP is concerned, the most prominent response has been to call for the
adoption of language rights (May 2001; Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas 1995).
The general motivation behind the proposal for language rights is to ensure
that an identifiable group – usually a discriminated or stigmatized ethnic
minority – is granted specific forms of protection and consideration on the
basis of their associated language. The concept of language rights has had
enormous appeal, finding a broad swathe of support amongst linguists,
sociologists, political philosophers, policy-makers and community activists
(Kymlicka 1995; May 2001; Phillipson and Skutnabb-Kangas 1995).However, this
actually makes it all the more critical that language rights be subjected to
careful scrutiny (Blommaert 2001; Stroud 2001). For example, while language
rights may be useful as a short-term measure, it is not clear that they are
tenable in the longer term. One reason for this is that there will be parties
who have a vested interest in maintaining their (usually hard-won) language
rights, and their motivations – such as the desire to cling to political power
or to continue enjoying the benefits afforded by such rights – can be quite
independent of how effective such rights may actually have been in dealing with
discrimination. This means that LPP needs to better understand the pros and
cons of language rights, and where necessary, explore alternative ways of
responding to multiculturalism.
Another
important challenge for LPP is to take better account of the fact that
traditional notions of ethnicity and nation do not fit easily with the
multilingual dynamics of late modern societies, which are increasingly
characterized by a pervasive culture of consumerism (Baudrillard 1988; Bauman
1998), where ‘people define themselves through the messages they transmit to
others through the goods and practices that they possess and display’ (Warde
1994: 878). In this regard, Stroud and Wee (2007) have suggested that the
concept of sociolinguistic consumption should be given a more foundational
status in language policy in late modernity, suggesting that this might offer a
more comprehensive account of the dynamics of language choice and change.
Finally,
one of the most pressing challenges facing the world today is that of global
migration and the related issue of ensuring the wellbeing and dignity of
individuals as they move across the globe in search of a better life. As many
states work to accommodate the presence of foreign workers, asylum seekers and
other aliens within their territories, the need to come up with realistic and
sensitive language policies will require the input of LPP specialists. If such
input is absent, there is a danger that language policies may unfairly penalize
the very people they were intended to help.
6. Critiques
Academic
marginality has not shielded language planning from attack. Perhaps severest
has been the allegation that LPP is complicit with social repression in the
interests of state and class (Luke, McHoul, & Mey, 1990). Mühlhäusler
(1995) holds that when applied by developed-country experts (operating with
notions of “one national language”) to intergenerationally stable multilingual
nations in post-colonizing contexts, LPP can lead to the creation of
hierarchical diglossia among existing languages and varieties, and in turn this
can lead to erosion and the ultimate demise of minority languages. Relatedly,
the spread of anglophone westernizing modernity can lead to the destruction of
distinctive life-worlds and the depletion of the alternative worldviews that
reside in diverse linguistic systems (Nettle & Romaine, 2000; Phillipson
& Skutnabb-Kangas, 1996; Skutnabb-Kangas, 1995), the result of the
absorption of poor and marginalized peoples into global consumerism.
Another
allegation has been that LPP has entrenched economic inequalities for
immigrants in first world societies by language educational schemes tracking
immigrants into low-paid, marginal jobs (Tollefson, 1991).
7. Problems
8. The Future of LPP
LPP
needs to start being more attentive to the problematic ways in which specific
language practices get categorized under particular labels (including that of
non-language), and the attendant impact of such categorizations on the social
trajectories of different individuals and communities.
