Language Planning
Kasia Starykiewicz Helai Mussa Larissa Lauer Caro Kirchhof Language Planning
“Language planning involves the creation and implementation of an official language policy about how languages and linguistic varieties of a country are to be used.”
(Crystal 2007)
2 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Language Planning: Contents I
1. Language Planning and Language Policy z Levels & Consequences of Language Planning z Pluricentric Languages z Case Studies: India and Singapore z Language Status 2. Language Policy and Functional Development 1. Functional Development of a Language 2. Language Contact Phenomena (Case Study) 3. Goal of Language Policies 4. Minority Languages 5. Case Study: Canada and Louisiana
3 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Language Planning: Contents II
1. Standardization & Implementation 1. Processes of Standardization (e.g. StE) 2. Corpus Planning 3. Status Planning 4. Acquisition Planning (e.g. USA) 2. Culture & Language Planning 1. Goals of Language Planning 2. Case Study: Irish Gaelic 3. Case Study: Hebrew
4 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Language Planning and Language Policy
1. Levels and Consequences of Language Planning 2. Pluricentric Languages 3. Case Studies: India and Singapore 4. Language Status
5 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Language Planning and Language Policy
z Acts of language planning and language policy – planned interventions – subnational, national, supranational
6 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Levels of Language Planning
z Subnational – development of restricted variety – expansion for communication – spread of use
7 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Levels of Language Planning
z National – official medium for national communication – standardization, codification, institutional prescription – language planning interventions/policies
8 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Levels of Language Planning
z Supranational – UNESCO – Pluricentric Languages – German spelling reform – unification of Portuguese
9 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Consequences of Language Planning
z normality of multilinguality z unilateral consequences – interlingual relationships z function z status z prestige z value
10 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 The Case of Pluricentric Languages
z German z Portuguese z English z French z Chinese z ...
11 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Case Study: India
z 3-language formula (secondary education) – local, Hindi, English z prestige z suspicion, jealousy
12 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Case Study: Singapore
z Policy since 1956: – English only in government and courts – dual medium schools z English plus 1 of the following (Malayan, Tamil, or Chinese [Mandarin, Cantonese, Teochew, or Hokkien] z insurance of lingua franca and bilingual literacy
13 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Language Use in Singapore I
z “Singlish“ – diglossically low English – not intelligible to Euro-American native speakers – Combination of English, Chineses, Malay, Tamil Æ reflects huge cultural diversity z multilingual media z http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ess4LnyrhQU
14 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Language Use in Singapore II
z Alamak /ah-lah-‘mahk, AlA'mAk/ expression of dismay, surprise or alarm z Cheemology /‘chee-mah-lo-gee, ´tSi´mAlɒdZi´/ A study of something profound z Blur : /blə; –ə´/ Ignorant, stupid, slow to catch on, confused, muddle-headed z Talk cock : 1 Talk rubbish, spout nonsense, make an unfounded statement. 2 Engage in chit-chat or small talk. (originates form Engl: cock-and-bull (story)
15 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Language Use in Singapore III
z Lau: mild exclamation expression, oh my goodness!, oh dear!, oh no! z aiyah: /ı-‘yah, √ɪ'jA˘/ An exclamation used at the beginning of a sentence to express consternation, despair, dismay, exasperation, etc. z mooncake: n. [Eng. transl. of Mand. 月 yuèbǐng: yuè moon + bǐng round, flat, traditional cake] z muffadet: /‘muf-ə-det, »m√f´dEt/ n. [corruption of Eng. hermaphrodite] Eurasian slang An effeminate male
16 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Language Status
z Who/where are the authorities for language planning? z Cooperation? – national – transnational z Examples – Germany – EU
17 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Problems of Language Policy (Status)
z questions that remain unclear on the supranational level z the acceptance of a functional profile for individual languages and varieties Æ the functions of a language on different levels in society
18 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Language Planning and Functional Development
zFunctional Development of a Language zLanguage Contact Phenomena (Case Study) zGoal of Language Policies zMinority Languages zCase Study: Canada and Louisiana
19 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Functional Development I
z Two aspects of language behavior from a social point of view: – establishing and maintaining social relationships – conveying information about the speaker Æ“clue-bearing role of language” (Trudgill 2000) – social status
20 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Functional Development II
z use of a language/variety as a written medium z spread of language across domains z functional profile through contact phenomena – “chance infiltration of foreign elements” (Aitchison 2001)
21 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Language contact phenomena
z looser or tighter nature (e.g. polyglot speech communities) z relationship: – stable – dynamic and changeable
22 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Extreme Language Contact
z Ma’a spoken in Tanzania – formerly Cushitic – “bantuized” through extensive contact with Bantu speakers – Ma’a resembles more the Bantu (Niger-Congo) than the Cushitic languages (Afro-Asiatic) z Linguistic features: – Cushitic languages (SOV) – Bantu languages (SVO)
23 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Bantu vs. Cushitic Languages
http://doktorgee.worldzonepro.com/ BlogFiles/AfricanLanguage Families-Blench.jpg
24 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Language Policies
z maintain stability z allow individual developments of dynamic situations z support language change z can disturb stable equilibrium of two languages z might counter processes of change
25 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Minority languages
z misconception of multilingual countries as monolingual – official languages vs. minority languages – large vs. small minorities z bilingualism
26 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Minority languages (Trudgill 2000)
z Language: z as minority language in: – German – Denmark, France, Hungary, etc. – Turkish – Greece, Macedonia, Bulgaria, Ukraine, etc. – Greek – Italy, Albania, Turkey, etc. – USA, Ukraine, Czechia, – Polish Lithuania, Kazachstan, etc. – Russia, Norway, Sweden – Finnish
27 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Minority Languages
z Many multilingual countries support dynamic processes – reducing the functional feasibility (practicability) of minority languages z Minority languages losers in the process of modernization – lack of institutional and state support
28 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Case Study: French in Canada and Louisiana
z French: – majority language in Québec (over 80%) – minority language in New Brunswick, Ontario and Manitoba z economic dominance of Canada and United States – fewer French native speakers
29 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 French in Canada
http://www.state.gov/cms_images/map_canada.jpg http://www.movingincanada.com/Quebec/Quebec-Map.jpg
30 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Functional Development in Canada
z supervised by the ‘Office Québécois de la Langue Française’ (1961) z formalized in the ‘Charter of the French Language’ z French: national language of communication in institutional and public media z English: highly restricted use
31 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Functional Atrophy in Louisiana
z Cajuns were an ethnic minority group (little prestige) z use of French in different domains grew more restricted z today: ~25% French – especially in individual parishes exclusively at home z status planning
32 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Standardization & Implementation
1. Processes of Standardization (e.g. StE) 2. Corpus Planning 3. Status Planning 4. Acquisition Planning (e.g. USA)
33 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Processes of Standardization
z Institutional Æ requires political authorization z Codified in dictionaries and grammars z Prescriptive and/or descriptive use
34 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Processes of Standardization
Æ selection Æ acceptance Æ elaboration Æ codification
35 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 The Development of StE: I
1. Selection of Basilect – ~1500: London, Oxford, Cambridge – centralized in London: economy, court, social
36 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 The Development of StE: II
2. Acceptance z sociolect of upper class z more middle class in higher offices (Henry VII) z prestige ↔ educated students z ‘universally intelligible’ Æ nationalism z literature: Chaucer, later Shakespeare
37 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 The Development of StE: III
3. Elaboration – spread over domains z translation of Bible into English z replacement of French/Latin – adoption by authorities (court, parliament)
38 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 The Development of StE: IV
4. Codification – dictionaries, grammars (prescriptive), style manuals, pronunciation guides – usage by authors z gain of popularity z (move toward corpus planning)
39 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Types of Implementation I
1. Corpus Planning z spelling, pronunciation, grammar, vocabulary z changes in structure(or corpus) z e.g. emergence of StE 2. Status Planning z definition of a language’s/variety’s status in a society z usage in court/official publications (for 1st time) z e.g. English replacing French in court Æ often not clearly discernible
40 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Types of Implementation II
3. Acquisition Planning z prescriptive, overt z often academies (e.g. Mexico), legal (e.g. Germany) z codification via popularity z authors, publishers’ manual (non-governmental, covert)
41 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Covert Language Planning in the USA
z non-governmental z dictionaries, e.g. Webster‘s, The American Heritage z style guides, e.g. MLA, Anne Stillman z via poetry and fiction, e.g. novels
42 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Dr. Seuss‘ The Cat in the Hat
z 1954: to improve literacy in English z today: many bilingual editions z 223 of 400 words of presumed syllabus,13 new words z 1626 words – 236 distinct – 54 occur once, 33 twice – 221 are monosyllabic – 2 longest: something and playthings.
43 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 The Cat in the Hat
"Look at me! Look at me now!" said the cat. "With a cup and a cake On the top of my hat! I can hold up TWO books! I can hold up the fish! And a little toy ship! And some milk on a dish! And look! I can hop up and down on the ball! But that is not all! Oh, no. That is not all... http://www.gamecyte.com/wp-content/ uploads/2008/08/cat-in-the-hat-fish.png 44 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Overt Acquisition Planning in the USA I
1964: Civil Rights Act 1974: Equal Educational Opportunity Act 1978: Rios vs. Read since 1980s: “English-Only“-Movement z call for English as official language z aim: federal legislation today: state-legislation (~50%, subnational)
45 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Overt Acquisition Planning in the USA II
The mission of the Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students (OELA) is to: z provide national leadership to help ensure that English language learners and immigrant students attain English proficiency and achieve academically and z assist in building the nation's capacity in critical foreign languages.
46 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Culture & Language Planning
"The failure to undertake concrete language policy measures is tantamount to assenting to spontaneous, unplanned processes od language development and is, in effect, a political measure of great purport in regard to language status.”
(Kummer/Gramley. "Language Planning and Policy")
47 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Culture and Language Planning
1. Goals of Language Planning 2. Case Study: Irish Gaelic 3. Case Study: Hebrew
48 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Chief goals of language planning I
z development of a language/variety as a medium of communication – subnational – national – supranational
49 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Chief goals of language planning II
z the establishment of an additional medium of communication alongside the first z extension of the communicative profile of a language/variety z the standardization and codification of languages
50 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Case study Scottish Gaelic (Dorian, 1970’s)
- receding language (?) - found out to be spoken as a mother tongue (Brora, Golspie and Embo) - “(…) its essential structure was no better and no worse than that of any other language. (…) it did not fulfil the social needs of the community who spoke it.”
(on the basis of research by Dorian, in: Aitchison 2001) Case Study: Irish Gaelic
z language planning program – political and cultural nationalism with Irish as a key symbol – emphasize Irish unity and her difference from Britain z policy for Irish (Gaelic) proposed by the Republic: – national language, though English remains official – restored in schools, etc. – used in the public service – modernized and standardized
52 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Arguments for the ‘Irish‘-policy
The Republic of Ireland Northern Ireland
- national language - factor for decolonization - valuable
- deserves support from - valuable good the EU as a “lesser used language”
- minority should be entitled to speak their native language 53 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Case Study: Irish Gaelic
z result: unsuccessful z causes for failure: – decrease in the Irish population (emigration) – little economic advantage of Gaelic – insufficient backing for public policy in support of Irish – the dead and doomed image of Irish, public skepticism
54 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Case Study: Ivrit – Modern Hebrew
z language planning program – one language as an emblem of shared Jewish history and traditions z goal: status of a written language Æ modern language of everyday speech z policy measures: rapid selection, acceptance, elaboration, and codification
55 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Case Study: Ivrit – Modern Hebrew
z Result: successful z Factors favoring development: – a strong feeling of a shared past – common mission for the future symbolized by Jewish traditions and the Hebrew language
56 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Guides to Modern Hebrew I
57 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Guides to Modern Hebrew II
58 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 How to promote language planning?
"What is needed is worldwide cooperation between all sorts of institutions and experts who have experience required in language policy and planning and can exchange information and experience within the framework of supranational political institutions.”
(Kummer / Gramley. "Language Planning and Policy")
59 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Sources I
Literature z Aitchison, Jean (2001). Language Change: Progress or Decay? (3rd ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. z Crystal, D. (2005). How Language Works. Harmondsworth: Penguin. z Kummer, W and S. Gramley (2008) "Language Planning and Policy" In: S. Gramley and V. Gramley (eds.) Bielefeld Introduction to Applied Linguistics. Bielefeld: Aisthesis, 291-300. z Lane, H. et al. (1996). A Journey Into the Deaf-World. San Diego: Dawnsign Press. z Trudgill, Peter (2000) Sociolinguistics: An introduction to language and society. (revised 4th ed.). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
60 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008 Sources II
Images of Hebrew Books z Harry Potter: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41c0YpmfgEL._SL500_ AA240_.jpg z http://behrman.powerwebbook.com/client/products/Prodimage Lg/163.jpg z http://levinejudaica.com/catalog/images/shomimgrossman.jpg z http://www.seferisrael.com/images/ivrit%20me- bereshit%20bet.jpg
61 Language Planning Nov. 26, 2008