Language Policy & Course Structure
Langgguage Planning 1. Language Contact language change Nigel Musk 2. Individual Bilingualism code-switching & code-mixing Master’s Course Spring Term: Language & Culture 3. Societal Bilingualism diglossia, language maintenance, language shift & http://www.liu.se/ikk/ffu/ske/Masterutbildning/courses/language-and-culture-in-europe?l=en language death (obsolescence) 4. Language Policy and Language Planning national langgg,uages, the EU and multiling ualism, lang gguage revitalisation & bilingual education
The Standard Language (Yule 2006: 194194--5)5) Language Planning 1
Definition: an idealised language variety, most often accepted as Langgguage ppglanning is not a new phenomenon even though the the official language of a community or country. (Yule 2006: 194) term is relatively recent the emerggyence of many modern Euro pean nation states b y It has a long history , though much of such activity has been the end of 19th century accompanied by the spread of implicit and informal (Blommaert 1996: 206) nationalist ideologies: one nation, one langgguage e.g. the creation of the modern European nation-states with their Codification of vernacular (spoken) languages was national languages influenced by traditions of unified written standard of upsurge in explicit language planning activities since the 1960s, Classical Latin, i.e. grammars prescribed a regulated and in response to the “language problems” of post-colonial states ‘refined’ language (akin to the language of the gentry) (Barber 1993: 203-4) Language Planning 2 Language Planning 3
rd language planning - term first introduced by Haugen (1959: 8) to mean: Coopppper proposes a 3 categgyory: acqqpguisition planning –to increas[e]
the activity of preparing a normative orthography, grammar, and dictionary for the number of users – speakers, writers, listeners, or readers (1996: 33) the guidance of writers and speakers in a non-homogenous speech community. Cooper’s definition of langggpuage planning : extended by Kloss (1969) to two foci of language planning: Language planning refers to corpus planning (including Haugen’s language planning activities) of others with respect to the status planning - government recognition of one language in relation to others language varieties to given functions allocation . (1996: 45, his italics) (Cooper 1996: 32) deliberate efforts e.g. the relations between a national language and regional or minority languages. of their language codes the distinction miggppht appear clear cut in theory, but Coop er admits that acquisition Today status planning has been broadened: the allocation of languages or this might not be the case in practice (1996: 32) to influence the behavior (Cooper 1996: 32) , structure e.g. which language(s) is (are) the official language and the medium (media) to or functional be used in education or the mass media.
Language Planning in the 1960s The Efficiency Assumption
earlyyggp language planners ( 1960s) treated the task of lang ggpuage planning refers to the oppygerational efficiency of multilingualism ((ycommon to many as a non-political problem-solving exercise, and were unaware of the post-colonial states)
ideological baggage which accompanied their practices assigggning more than one or two langgguages to the pppurposes of (Blommaert 1996, Ricento 2000) administration, education, the media and economic life, etc. was
e.g. sociolinguists and other practitioners inadvertently bore with them the deemed as unworkable and unmanageable (Blommaert 1996: 210-11) blueprint of the European nation-state the promotion of a single “language of wider communication” was their work was blighted by what Blommaert (1996: 210-11) terms: ppyortrayed as a ppgragmatic solution to an efficiencyyp problem an efficiency assumption “little more than an agency of ideological control” which facilitates state an integration assumption ((gg)and in the case of colonial languages even world) domination (Williams 1992: 127) The Integration Assumption Language Planning 4
entails an essentialist or “orggggyanic view of language and society” langggpuage planning is not a neutral or simp pple problem-solvinggy activity:
(Blommaert 1996: 212), whereby national unity is threatened by officially Language planning is typically carried out for the
recognising more than one (or two) languages. linguistic ends
given the assumed language-culture link, an official policy of national integration, political control, economic development, the identity: s/he speaks one language ( such as consumer protection, scientific exchange, multilingualism would act as “a centrifugal force” and rouse ethnic creation of new elites or the mainte
political aspirations (Blommaert 1996: 211-12) or cooption of minority groups, an attainment of non- (Cooper 1996: 35) Eurocentric monolingual and monocultural bias evident: political movements. it is assumed that every individual has one and only one ethnolinguistic there are always ideological assumptionsnance and of politicalold ones, imperatives the pacification d mass mobilization of national or the mother tongue), and has which underpin language planning activities
therefore only one ethnic identity. (Blommaert 1996: 208)
Bourdieu: Linguistic Markets and Language Policy & Planning Symbolic Domination 1 (1986, 1991)
influenced, and continue to influence, language can be characterised as a form of cultural capital increasingly, language planning activities are being termed language policy and regard to language use, acquisition and status. planning (LPP) which broadens the perspective somewhat. languages are acquired and used in particular contexts where people
Ricento regards language planning as a subordinate category to language have different degrees of power and economic resources societal attitudes and practices with policy, which for research purposes: these contexts are markets where values of linguistic and cultural is concerned not only with official and unofficial acts of governmental and other resources are negotiated institutional entities entities but, but also also with thewith historical the historical and cultural and processes cultural processes that have that have
(politically and economically) dominant social groups exercise most (Ricento 2000: 209, footnote 2) symbolic power and therefore define the value of the different forms this acknowledges the broader processes of a historical and cultural nature, of linguistic and cultural capital on each linguistic market involving non-governmental players too, e.g. pressure groups, researchers, journalists, charismatic leaders (with or without the legitimacy of the state) Bourdieu: Linguistic Markets and Bourdieu: Linguistic Markets and Symbolic Domination 2 (1986, 1991) Symbolic Domination 3 (1986, 1991)
the state is instrumental in imposing the dominant language (variety) = the legitimate (most prestigious) language through the administration, the media, the courts and especially social and symbolic order throug h th e ed ucati on syst em
other languages (varieties) become delegitimised a partilicular symblibolic ord er ihis thus i mposed on th hliiie linguistic market
proficiency in the legitimate language is unequally distributed in interactional order society, thus regulating access to (economic and political) power language = cultural capit al , fdfundamen tlttal to social mobilit y
Bourdieu: Linguistic Markets and Bourdieu: Linguistic Markets and Symbolic Domination 4 Symbolic Domination 5
Criticism of Bourdieu’s model [I]t remains hard to see how […] Bourdieu’s framework avoids being social and symbolic order structuresa deterministic fail to seal hermetically, and which provide sites […] capital, but […] Bourdieu fails to show how actors can actually where differentprocess practices of reproduction:of We can trade forms of intervene to change how things happen.(Pennycook, 2001: 126) The power of dominant groups is not monolithic and […] in every situation where there are asymmetricalresistance relations of power between groups [], there […] arethere always are interstices;always interstices; that is spaces (thosethat where is, ofspaces students where and/or interactional order
teachers) can be developed and where different world views can be articulated.(Martin-Jones & Heller 1996: 131) Language Revitalisation Reversing Language Shift 1
Huss’s definition of language revitalisation: Fishman (1991, 2000) has constructed a graded typology of a conscious effort to curtail the assimilative development of a threatened language status, which he has called GIDS, the
language which has been steadily decreasing in use and to Gradedaction, Intergenerational rather than merely Disruption descriptive Scale or analytic of the
give it new life and vigour. (Huss 1999: 24) GIDS is a diagnostic test of linguistic vitality (cf Giles et al 1977),
deliberate ppglanning is implicated to reverse the trend of but it is also to be read as a ppgractical guide as to the order in language shift, which is why the term reversing language which to reverse the process of language shift: shift is also used. RLS theory theory seeks seeks to be to directive be directive or implicational or implicational vis vis-à-vis social social
sociocultural scene scene. (Fishman 2000: 464)
Stages of Reversing Language Shift1 Reversing Language Shift 2 (Fishman 1991, 2000)
to reverse language shift, Fishman stresses that the acid test of all RLS 5. Schools for literacy acquisition, for the old and for the young, efforts is the intergenerational transmission of what he terms “Xish”, and not in lieu of compulsory education. the language (previously) undergoing language shift. 6. The intergenerational and demographically concentrated home-family-neighborhood: the basis of mother tongue He divides the stages of RLS into two levels: transmission. 1. stages 8-5, which represent a “program minimum”, i.e. the steps 7. Cultural interaction in Xish ppyrimarily involvin g the communit y- that need to be in place to ensure stable diglossia based older generation. 2. stages 4-1 are aimed at transcending diglossia when steps 8-5 are 8. Reconstructing Xish and adult acquisition of XSL. in place, i.e. normalising the use of Xish in public domains (Fishman 2000: 400) I. RLS to attain diglossia (assuming prior ideological clar ifica tion ) Stages of Reversing Language Shift2 (Fishman 1991, 2000) Reversing Language Shift 3
1. Education, work sphere, mass media and governmental Problems operations at higher and nationwide levels. 2. Local/regional mass media and governmental service prescriptive model based on the discrete domains of each stage which need to be reserved and compartmentalised for Xish simplifies the 3. The local/regional work sphere, both among Xmen and Ymen. complex everyday realities of these domains 4b. Public schools for Xish children, offering some instruction via Xish, but substantially under Yish curricular and staffing assumption that attaining diglossia after reaching stage 4 can provide control. the stability needed to ensure at least language maintenance. Yet there is nothing inherently stable about diglossia; indeed, it may 4a. Schools in lieu of comppyulsory education and substantiall y under Xish curricular and staffing control. contain the seeds of instability, insofar as it embodies the inequality of Xians vis-à-vis Yians
II. RLS to transcend diglossia, subsequent to its attainment
Reversing Language Shift 4 Reversing Language Shift 5
Problems (()cont.) Problems (()cont.)
Hyltenstam, Stroud and Svonni claim that: in the Irish context, Ó Riagáin criticises Fishman’s model of it is societal relations as a whole th disregarding economic, social and spatial variables : shift and that the actions of individuals must be seen in a societal The state plays a very dominant ro context.(Hyltenstam et al 1999: 90, my translation) developpypment and thus it is necessary to examine policies which relate i.e. it is essential to acknowledge theat positivegovern the impact process of stages of language 1-4 on to economic, and social (particularly education) issues, and whose the intergenerational transmissibility of Xish. intent was not at all language oriele in shaping the socioeconomic in contrast to Fishman, they advocate simultaneous action on a broad operation of language policy. It is probable that, in total, their front at all societal levels in order to reverse language shift (1999: 92) consequences for language maintenance objectives are extensive and of more importance than language policiesnted, but per which se. (2000: greatly 212-213) affect the Reversing Language Shift 6 societalRSL ‘catch-up’ Efforts operation & in ordeEducation generation had left off, without the benefi
Problems (()cont.) Fishman stresses the imppgortancer ofto stamerelyge 6wind on theup where GIDS thescale, prior i.e. the intergenerational transmission of Xish: Fishman recommends that any RLS movement “go it alone” without t of the head start that an incremental Clearly without the intergenerational tran seeking state support (2000: 13) mustbt be i t‘gi i lin t’ li i at Yi ‘po hi din dt fzero d t ’, i.e. monolingual in Yish and in need of a tremendous
but the welfare state in many European contexts is a provider/part- financer of services such as childcare and after -school activities as well increase in in mother mother tongue tongue use souse obviously so obviously provides provides for any RLS for movement. any RLS movement. (1991: 369) smissibility [...] every new generation as a provider of compulsory education, healthcare, etc. He also warns specifically against RLS efforts that rely heavily on therefore it is unnecessarily restrictive and consensual not to demand education. To succeed, he claims that these services in Xish for Xians school must be an integral part of the family-neighborhood axis of child socialization and identity-commitment formation. (()1991: 410)
Martin-Jones’ Taxonomy of Bilingual Linguistic Markets & Education Education 1 (2001)
Parents can invest cultural capital in their children Transitional Maintenance Enrichment through their choice of schools to ensure that their Model Model Model children acquithlire the language( ()/ls)/language vari it(ety(- monolingual bilingual
ies) of the dominant social group(s) and thereby use of L1 to use of L1 to use of L2 to sole use of L2 facilitate the develop develop additive ensure their social mobility transition to L2 alongside L2 bilingualism fllliiifor all linguistic flfor learners f rom li liiiinguistic minori ty flfor learners f rom groups groups dominant groups Transitional Maintenance Enrichment
MartinModel -JonesModel’ Taxonomy Model of (2001) monolingual Bilingual bilingualEducation 2 Bibliography 1 language language shift language development Barber, C. (1997 [1993]) The English language: a historical introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge (subtracti ve bilingua lism) maitintenance (additive University Press. bilingualism) Blommaert, J. (1996) “Language Planning as a Discourse on Language and Society: The Linguistic Ideology of a Scholarly Tradition.” Language Problems and Language Planning 20.3: 199-222. affirmation of Bourdieu, P. (1986) “The forms of capital .” Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of cultural assimilation of cultural identities education. Ed. J. G. Richardson. New York: Greenwood Press, 241-258. cultural pluralism minority students of minority Bourdieu, P. (1991) Language and Symbolic Power. Oxford, UK: Polity Press. students Cooper, R. L. (1996 [1989]) Language Planning and Social Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. immersion (full maintenance Fishman, J. A. (1991) Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and empirical foundations of assistance or partial) transitional bi- ppgrogrammes to threatened languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. two-way or Fish man, J . A ., ed . (2000) Can Threa tene d Languages Be Save d? Revers ing Language Shift, submersion lingual educ. heritage and enrichment Revisited: A 21st Century Perspective. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd. L2 teaching programmes lang. revival progs. Giles, H., R. Bourhis & H. Taylor. (1997) “Towards a Theory of Language in Ethnic Group Relations.” bilingual support progs. international Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations. Ed. H. Giles. London: Academic Press, 307-349. language shelter schools
Bibliography 2 Bibliography 3
Haugen, E. (1959) “Planning for a standard language in modern Norway.” Anthropological Linguistics Ó Riagáin, P. (2000) “Irish Language Production and Reproduction 1981-1996.” Can Threatened 1.3: 8 -21. Languages Be Saved? Reversing Language Shift, Revisited: A 21st Century Perspective .Ed.J.. Ed. J. Huss, L. (1999) Reversing Language Shift in the Far North. Linguistic Revitalization in Northern A. Fishman. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd, 195-214. Scandinavia and Finland. Studia Uralica Uppsaliensia 31. Uppsala: Uppsala University Library. Pennycook, A. (2001) Critical Applied Linguistics: A critical introduction. New Jersey, USA: Lawrence Hyltenstam, K . C . Stroud & M. Svonni. (1999) “Språkbyte, språkbevarande, revitalisering . Samiskans Erlbaum Associates , Inc. ställning i svenska Sápmi.” Sveriges sju inhemska språk – ett minorietetsspråksperspektiv. Ed. Ricento, T. (2000) “Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning.” Journal K. Hyltenstam. Lund: Studentlitteratur, 41-97. of Sociolinguistics 4.2:196-213. Kloss, H . (1969) Researc h Poss ibilities on Group Bilingua lism: a repor t. QbQuebec: ItInternati tilCtonal Centre Williams, G . (1992) SiliitiASililCitiSociolinguistics. A Sociological Critique. LdLondon: RtldRoutledge. for Research on Bilingualism. Yule, G. (2006) The Study of Language, 3rd edn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Martin-Jones, M. (2001). Unpublished lecture notes accompanying the course modules: “Bilingual Educati on: ED30810” & “Bilingua lism: ED32220” a t the Un ivers ity o f Wa les, Aberys twy th. Martin-Jones, M. & Heller, M. (1996) “Introduction to the Special Issues on Education in Multilingual Settings: Discourse, Identities, and Power Part II: Contesting Legitimacy.” Linguistics and Education 8.2: 127-137.