PLANNING

Andi Asrifan Email: [email protected] Universitas Muhammadiyah Sidenreng Rappang

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

This article will explore linguistic preparation. This paper offers a summary of the various language plans that can be listed. An summary and a revised bibliography of the field of language planing are provided. Language planning is defined as the planning of deliberate changes in the way or the implementation of the of and is seen as a sociolinguistic sub-discipline. Topic Discussion The themes discussed include linguistic planning, ideal language • What is language planning? planning, language planning goals, linguistic planning styles and levels, linguist's positions in language planning, language planning • The language planning research, language planning and linguistic planning implementation programme and assessment, bilingual training and education policies. • Aims of language planning • Language planning as product planning • Types of language planning • Levels of language planning • Role of the linguist in language planning • Language planning and other types of planning • Language planning surveys

INTRODUCTION

Language planning is a tentative concept as the planning of deliberate change in the form or use of language(s) (or varieties). Planning as well as language use are social practices and language planning is usually considered to be a subdiscipline of . However there are strong ties between language planning and other types of planning, for example in economic and cultural areas, which offer a strong multidisciplinary taste to linguistic planning. Never far are linguistic or political gaps (Mazrui 1975; O'Barr, W. & O'Barr 1976) and the complexity of linguistic planning studies in linguistic planning is arguably tied together inextricately. If one agrees that linguistic planning deals more with social than linguistic structures, it can be considered to belong to the 'macro' target of socio- or linguistic sociology (society study) instead of 'micro' sociolinguistics (society study) (see Hudson, 1980: 4-5 for discussion of the differences). In the fourth concept of Fishman, Language Preparation may definitely be included (Fishman (ed.)1971:9): "Language sociology deals with language diversity as a target, as a barrier and as 9 facilitator, as well as language users and uses as aspects of wider social models and processes." However, the distinctions "makro" and "micro" are not clear: "there are no wide-ranging links between language and society, which are not interactive in individual ways to make them a reality" (Fishman, 1971b: 31). Two ends in one clinic are macro- and micro-sociolinguism, the former stress social, the latter linguistic, structures. Planning would have to take place on various stages in the process of language planning at different points along this path, with a useful mid-way point in Fishman's concept of domain (20071 b).

A. What is Language Planning? In socia-linguistics, language planning is relatively recent, but not new, discipline (see, for example, Fishman, 1971 c), and the malel building and theory building are at present very significant in their development. Therefore, the number of different meanings and words of the , which 1 may attempt to explain can be initially confused with those who are not acquainted with the language planning.

The description from Weinstein provides a useful assessment: language planning is an accepted, long- term, sustained, and conscious attempt on the part of governments to alter the role of language in a society in order to solve communication problems (Weinstein, 1980: 56).

Definitely, Jernudd and Das Gupta. On (1971) the political, problems resolving the essence of linguistic planning is similarly stressed, and das Gupta and Ferguson (1977) considers language planning to be a linguistic resource evaluation, the assignment of preferences and functions to one or more languages and a misuse according to previously established goals. Rubin (1973) stresses the future-oriented nature of the company's challenges by identifying priorities and by considering solutions at each point in the process. She underlines the social nature of language planning and the need for plan makers to take account of the needs and expectations of people who plan. The development of policies is not planned. Many so-called 'failures' for language preparation may have been nothing more than policies without any planning.

B. The language planning programme

In an ideal language planing program, Rubin (1977) offers a detailed overview of the stages. Step 1 requires the compilation of facts, identification of problems and the:solving of possible restrictions. Step 2, where the priorities are set, tactics planned and the results expected, is the preparation phase. The plan is then introduced, I in stage 3 and input on the plan's progress or failure in step 4. Because of the input, adjustments to the programme, the preparation is also an ongoing process at every point. Although this is an ideal sequence, it offers a useful model to schedule and compare with real planning processes. Weinstein (1980) outlines a similar method, attempting to synthesize other models, but in more detail with 11 program steps. In addition, he added examples of Rubin's model process implementation (e.g. the establishment of bureaucracies), outcomes for planning (acceptance or denial by language users) and interaction between policy makers (government), policy journalists (bureaucracy) and planners. An especially helpful feature of his explanation is attempting to classify certain participants in the language preparation process. C. Aims of language planning

Language preparation has three objectives: extr-lingual purposes related to linguistic reform; half- language aims related to change in written structures, orthographing and pronunciation; and linguistic purposes related to linguistic changes, including extensions or standardisation. Linguistic priorities include changes in the language or languages of language usage. These words represent a limited meaning of linguistics and suggest that language planning is restricted. For example, even if the goals are extraterringual, the linguist may contribute to language planning (see section 10 below on the role of the linguist in Language Planning). Rubin (1977) also uses the same words to describe goals in a somewhat different way. Extra-language goals are cases where a non-language objective is supported by preparing a language issue that may be inexistent, but intentionally developed. Semi-linguistic goals serve linguistic as well as social as political interests and linguistic objectives strive to solve problems of communication. Apparently, Rabin and Rubin refer to various groups of goals. Rabin's are similar to the division of Kloss between planning status (planning of specific functions or language uses) and corpus (language code shift and the creation of and ) (Kloss, 1969). Rubin explains to what degree certain goals serve communication, social, political or non-linguistic purposes. Th.: divisions of aims/goals (or mean/end) can be conserved using the following matrix:

Purposes (Ends) (Rubin) Aims (Means) (a) Communication (b) Socio-politico (c) Political (Rabin/Elms linguistic (i) Status x x x (ii) Corpus- x x x / (iii) Corpus- x x x

From this matrix we can clearly see the form and intent of changes that are expected. Therefore, in order to (e.g. more effective classroom instruction, (b) e.g. protecting minority rights or (c) e.g. protection of political influence, the proposed implementation of mother tongue as a means of education during initial stages of schooling may be intended. There could, of course, be more than one goal and for various reasons, different groups may (or oppose) support a proposal. Similarly, the planning authorities can propose open or protected uses, which are intended to obtain public support, while planning for other unpublicized purposes at the same time.

D. Language planning as product planning

We saw how a program of language planning should work and what clear purposes and priorities could inspire planing. The changes that might take place in a language (product) within the context of a language planning program must now be taken into account. We distinguish four aspects of product planning following Neustupny (1970): collection, codification, processing and development. Choosing a language is a process that is very different from the other three, since it is a significant consequence of policy decisions. The significance seems similar to the idea of allocation by Gorman (1973), which he considers different from the system. Codification is required when a language is standardized and includes a and reference system. If a language assumes various functions, it will require additional words to allow the language to handle new designs (elaboration). Finally, provided the stabilization of the different variations in a language, linguistic concepts of adequacy can involve expression. These last three elements, codification, growth and culture can be considered as a planning stage resulting from planning and can be viewed as various types of corpus planning (see section 6 above). They may also represent a temporary linguistic sequence. For example, Neustupny argues that developing are generally at the selection ("political" approach) level, choosing for inter and intranational communication, whereas developed countries with more robust language functions may provide "cultivation" approaches. Haugen (b.1966a) offers a similar planing model and Fishman (1975) suggests the convergence of the two. (Evidence of the latmT method is clearly seen in the Design Document Center and its newsletters Plainly Stated.)

E. Types of Language Planning

Kloss (1977) presents a useful typology of Language Planning which clarifies and simplifies a number of conflicting and overlapping definitions provided by other writers on the subject: Category Language planning

Category Language Planning (1) Scale National Other-than-national (2) Methods Innovative Conservative (3) Goals Maintenance-oriented Transition-oriented (4) Dimensions Corpus Status (5) Scope One target tongue More than one target tongue

Category 1 is focused not only upon government, but also private institutions and pressure groups. Language preparation may be performed by governments. Innovative and conservative are approximately the same as the above-mentioned policy and cultivation methods of Neustupny (section 7). Corpus and status planning is discussed already (see section 6 above). Category 3 shall apply for bilingual services (see below section15), if a culture and its related language can remain in place, or if it is presumed that preservation is a transitional stage for eventual cultural assimilation and a loss of the . Category 3 shall be applicable to bilingual programmes. Scope refers to the situation where one or more languages of planning are involved. Although the goal may be one language, the planning process may affect other languages but it is fundamentally different from that in which two or more languages from the very beginning are part of the planning process.

F. Levels of language planning Most authors consider Linguist Planning as a national government activity with lower level organizations in relation to implementation or to the extent of language planning, and not themselves with language planning. Linguist planning activities are carried out at national level (Jernudd & Das Gupta, 1971). However, Jernudd (1973) and Fishman (1973) commented on other I.P levels. This is an important extension of the language planning concept, since it prevents needless divisionalisation and also exposes the relations between language planning and its impact. Since b defining the planning process in various parts of the chain, we should be able to determine the root of problems and reasons for a st.ccess/failure of such projects, the level definition is particularly useful in terms of learning. A kind of language programming takes place at all stages, involving various procedures, participants and circumstances, but mostly following the same Rubin 4-stage programme (sec section 5 above). The relation is maintained between the levels (must it be) as planers at each level are involved in the implementation process of the program at the above level when preparing the programme. A suitably refined model could be used to clarify, for example, why the Language Plan at Level II failed/successful when applied as materials of level 6 in relation to, say, the introdv-lion of a new ELT syllabus. Syllabus planning as an example of micro-level language planning has tended to ignore higher planning stages, but there are indicators that relationships are increasingly conscious. Oshtain (1979) has developed a model of multi-level preparation of a larger communication language. The Bell agencies, issues and output at various 'planning' levels are identified at most to the least powerful levels (1981: 25) although its 'level' selection criteria are not explicitly defined. For example, it is not clear why it is obviously more strongly the linguistic level than the psychological one. Roe (1977: 85) refers to the 'complete set-up of curricula' in the sense of the ESP, and assumes that the bulk of the important decisions had already been made before the preparation chain met the ESP expert. This raises the question of the degree to which lower levels could affect higher levels. Judd (1981) and Stern (1981) relate national policy and the usage of English in various communities to varieties of English and eventually, issues like the amount of time spent in English teaching and the ways to be taught. Tollefson (1981a) also maps the relationship between macro-politics and its goals (my level 1) and its implementation in the form of education, textbooks and innovation while discussing the relations between language preparation and second-language learning (see also Tellefson, 1980). It lists many variables, including approaches to , attitudes and motivation, which it thinks a conscious, conscious process of language planning will decide. Tollefson could be used as a useful tool for examining the links between macro- and micro-planing success/failures in the field of language planning, by means of the degree of 'coupling' within the planning system; the level of possible planning adaptation for wording and implementation; and the degree to the whic Couplage refers to the exercise of authority by planners over the implementing bodies, to the determination or regulation of their organization or objectives. These factors can be used in the assessment of ELT programmes. In comparisons with curriculum innovation at tertiary level ELT, in particular in the field of ESP, heLanguage Preparation could clarify much greater problems in the production of secondary levels Euros (see ELT Documents, 108, 1980).

G. Role of the linguist in language planning

Language policy is a political intervention, and politicians, not linguists, take political decisions. Policy-led planning will be transferred to planners and the question of linguists' role in planning and its impact on policy-making arises at this stage. If the latter wishes to remain impartial, a distinction between politics and the linguist is required. Sometimes that's not the case. For example, work on bilingualism is often interpreted in terms which are far from objective, clearly influenced by the author's socio-political perspective. Rabin (1971) is interested in corpus planning in the primary linguistic process. He is seen as a historian and a descriptitivist (who can explain the usage of linguistic in the community) as a teacher (whose language tends to be parallel to Rabin's view); and as a theoretian, as well as as a teacher (who can analyze language). Haugen (19666). (able to deal with pedagogic problems). Therefore, the first of them extends Haug' s term for sociolinguists and applied linguists, although the need for political, sociological and psychological skills might not be enough to plan linguistics. (The article in Haugen also gives a strong introduction to LANGUAGE PLANNING.)

Ruhin (1971) suggested that he or she would play an important role as an evaluator in any phase of the planing program in the planning process (using the word to include both the "pure" as well as the "Applied" linguist) (see section 14 below on Evaluation). Paulston (1974) differentiates linguistic cultivations from linguistic policies (not to confuse him with the words of Neustupny (1970), see paragraph 7 above). Language culture discusses language and socio-political problems. . With Jernudd, she shows the links between culture and politics, but she finds that the linguist can only operate in a cultivation category and not politics. In the three-stage program of Jernudd she demonstrates the linkage between cultivation and politics. She also claims that the linguist should contribute to policies. The impact of Whiteley (1973) was suspicious that linguists would agree that linguistic evidence would only be included in policy decisions if the knowledge served the ideology of the day (see Section 12(c) below for further discussion).

H. Language planning and other types of planning

Many authors (Ruhin, 1973; Cooper, 1979) regard the language as a resource, and there arises a question as to whether they can prepare it as other resources do. Cooper (op. cit.) claims that marketing analysis and techniques can be extended to language planning by comparison with product planning in other . Fishman I 973) tries to find similarities with other language preparation. He points to the difficulties of treating language as a quantitative resource but concludes that an analysis of other planning theories and processes will at least help language planners. In the Language Planning Theory, for instance, the notion of "unexpected system links" (Fishman, 1973:93) is worthwhile. An example would be the implementation of English as the primary school for the education of a trained yet unemployed elite that results in higher ambitions and unsatisfied demand for jobs. Thorburn (1971) attempts to assess the areas that can be vulnerable to cost benefit analysis in terms of language planning and proposes that for a large language choice:. Communication (I,WC) factors such as costs of teacf can be calculated, but in most cases it is not reliable, as follows: ng language, the impact of I and WC information on central administration, the influence on trade and the creation of higher living standards. The latter show the difficulties of the segregation of various causes — effects and uncertainty as to whether the outcome of language programming or other social and economic planning can be observed, particularly since there are many linguistic benefits and a significant time lag between causes and effects ( Jernudd, 1971). Khubchandani (1977) reports that linguistic preparation concerns changes in human behavior and that these are distinct from planning resources or technology. a dissident voice on the assumptions underlying investigations in this field. If one does or does not support this (and there is a good claim that any strategy is simply concerned with changes to human behaviour), it can be argued for ties between linguistic planning and product planning that encourage people to use a product for the first time, use it more or less, or move fruit from product to product. But, very rightly enough, Khubchandani's statement brings a humanistic elemi into the linguistic planning, which is necessary because a language belongs to those who use it and it is an integral part of your identity (Eastman, 1981). Language preparation is therefore strongly laden with importance and is as instrumental in emotional (nationalist, high-level) structures. This sentimentality brings a dimension to linguistic planning that cannot be so apparent in other schemes, as Kelmann(1971) indicates that linguistic schemes should be built in response to instrumental needs and interests rather than sentimental needs. However, such claims do not mean that attempting to learn from planning in other areas must not be abandoned. For example, the micro level of language planning in the field of ELT curriculums and curriculum creation showed near-total lack of knowledge of planning theory and concentrated on the required but not appropriate linguistic level (see for example, Bachman & Strick, 1981). Thosen there are Bernfis, Benne and Chin (1970), Rogers and Shoemaker (1971); Jernudd (1971); Fishman (1973); Kooper (1979); and Tollefson, who are involved in other than language preparation (1981 b).

I. Language planning surveys Objective and form

Surveying can be used to assist democratic growth, measure the progress of policy implementation or support the co-design of the programs. Ohannessian, Ferguson and Polome (eds.) (1975); Harrison, Prator and Tucker (1975) for Jordan; Rubin, Jernudd, Das Gupta, Fishman, and Ferguson (eds.) (1975) are the most detailed survey reports and papers available for the students.

Linguistic survey issues

In order to generate language profiles, surveys need a framework to describe a language situation within the . The classification of data based on language types, rank, number of speakers and accessibility within the populations is given by the different ways Ferguson (1966), Kloss (1968) and Stewart (1968). Whiteley (1973) explains some problems attempting to construct a national sociolinguistic profile, challenging the importance that a generalization such as geographical, socio-economic and age, sex, urban / rural differential could have if demographics and differences are not considered. Likewise, Lieberson (1980) points out the difficulties of comparing samples from various areas and economic growth levels. Many language preparation information is taken from census reports that have to be cautiously processed. Census definitions or urban distinctions may vary from researchers' definitions of socio-economic terms. Many language knowledge can be based on an independent report, which is inaccurate (Mobbs, 1981). The number of sociolinguists: surveys collect data from self-reports in this regard is remarkable. Surveies are of course constrained by time, money and manpower, but maybe less self-reporting, especially in the case of claimed language skills, or at least some language tests should be performed cross-checkingly. Sampling problems are referred to by Romaine (1980) who argued that data are to be obtained, evaluated and interpreted more rigorously or that flaws at least are recognized in drawing conclusions. Scotton (1978) points out the same thing about faults in fundamental technique, accusing sociolinguists of the lack of training in that area. (c) Impact of inquiries

Linguist may assume that surveys might alter or lead to policy changes (unless the results happen to fit in with prevailing policy). In his introduction to the Montreal Sociolinguistic Studies Conference (1975), Pool recognizes that few surveys have ever been carried out. Everybody involved in an inquiry should know, from the beginning, whether the object of the survey is to be used exclusively as a university research programme. If the above is reasonable, the software needs to be closely connected with government; that there should be a rapid distribution and that the production should not be submitted in a technically unnecessary way; that there should be alternative solutions to problems and that they should be practical with regard to available resources and not at the level of government The last argument is that local workers are closely involved in the project and the level of such interaction is likely to be the cornerstone for examining influences with policymakers. The literature divides opinion on whether to function in the sense of a current political situation. In particular, some would suggest that foreign experts do not advise on language policy, but remain unselfish descriptivists. Weinstein (1980), who argues that a political motive underlies most groups' work in linguistic planning, questions this 'disinterest' among those interested in language planning. More limited small-scale local surveys are strongly sponsored. An example of such a survey, which in addition to being an instrument of reform for those participating in the survey, can also be influential at higher levels of the framework (Rosen & Burgess 1980).

CONCLUSION

Many people wonder 'What's that when language preparation is said? ' I hope I have answered that question reasonably satisfactorily and also passed on some heLanguage Planningful information to those already specialising in Language Planning. I have intentionally expanded that to include their impact on language training and language teaching in the classroom as part of the conventional scope for language planing, as I feel that it is necessary for all those at different levels of language planning, including the teachers, to be informed of the planning activity at different levels in the system and its implications for the work of themselves. Recorded as an additional language by Fishman et al. (1977). With the continuation of this process, and the main language of modern technology, training, upward mobility and unification in English, linguistic planning will become an increasingly important part of national planning and especially with governments interested in adopting a cost-conscious, utilitarian approach in the field of training in English. The first results of this strategy can already be seen in the growth of ESP programs at tertiary level worldwide. Other aspects of the educational system with consequent high expectations for teachers and designers are likely to be subject to such dramatic changes. These stresses can be relieved, or at a minimum understood, by raising understanding of the language planning processes of all those involved in education and, whether, for example, Language Planning can be more relevant in teacher-training programs.

REFERENCES

Fishman, J. A. (ed.) (1968). Readings in the . The Hague: Mouton. Fishman, J. A. (ed.) (1971/72). Advances in the sociology of language. Vols. 1 and 2. The Hague: Niouton. Fishman, J. A. (ed.) (1974). Advances in language planning. The Hague: Mouton. Fishman, J. A. (ed.) (1977). Advances in the creation and revision of writing systems. The Hague: Mouton. Fishman, J. A. (ed.) (1978). Advances in the study of societal . The Hague: Mouton. Fishman, J. A., Ferguson, C. & Das Gupta, J (eds.) (1968). Language problems of developing nations. New York: Wiley & Sons. Mackey, W. F. & Ornstein, J. (eds.) (1979). Sociolinguistic studies in language contact. The Hague: Mouton. Ohannessian, S., Ferguson, C. & Polomt, E. (eds.) (1975). Language surveys in developing nations. Arlington, Va.: Center fur . Ruhin, J. & Jernudd, 13. I i. (eds.) (1971). Can language be planned% Honolulu: University of Hawaii, East V.Ist Center. Rubin, J., Jernudd, B. li., Das Gupta, J., Fishman, J. A. & Ferguson, C. (eds.) (1977). Language planning processes. The !fugue: :Mouton. Ruhin, J. & Shuy, R. (eds.) (1973). Language planning: current issues and research. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press. Whiteley, W. H. (ed.) (1971). Language use and social change. : Oxford University Press. Adekunle, M. (1972). Sociolinguistic problems in English language instruction in . In D. M. Smith & R. W. Shut', (eds.), Sociolinguistics in cross-cultural analysis (Washington D .0.: Georgetown University Press), 83-101. Aendras, E. A. & Kuo, E. (eds.) (1980). Language and society in . Singapore: University Press. Alatis, J. E. (ed.) (1978). International dimensions of bilingual edu-ation. Washington D.C.: Georgetown Bickerton, D. (1975). Can English and Pidgin be kept apart? In Tok Pisin I Go We, special publication no. 1 of Kit ung Journal of Linguistic Society of , 21-27. Bowen, J. D., Cooper, R. L. & Ferguson, C. (1976). Language in Ethiopia. London: Oxford University Press. Brann, C. M. B. (1979). Nlultilingualism in Nigerian education. In Mackey & Ornstein (eds.), 379- 92. Brann, C. M. B. (1981). Trilingualism in language planning for education in sub-saharan Africa. Paris: UNESCO. Chai, II. C. (1971). Planning education for a plural soci-ty. Paris: UNESCO, International Institute for Educational Planning. Christie, P. (1980). The language situation in Jamaica. Polyglot, 2, 2, A3-B3. Clyne, NI. (ed.) (1976). Australia talks : essays on the sociology of Australian, immigrant, and aboriginal languages. Canberra Pacific Linguistics. Series D, No. 23. Cooper, R. L. (1979). Language planning, language spread and . In Alatis & Tucker (eds.), 23 50.