Catherine Siew Kheng Chua 1 Introduction. Issues in language planning and policy: From global to local This book is published in memory of Richard (Dick) Birge Baldauf Jr. – My supervisor, mentor and friend. As a young postgraduate student in the University of Queensland (Australia), I worked as a university tutor for Dick for the course ‘Introduction to Teaching English as a Second Language’. When my then supervisor left the university, Dick did not hesitate to take me under his wing even though his supervision load was already over the quota. For that, I am eternally grateful to his kindness and generosity to ‘adopt’ me. In my study journey with him, he was always fatherly and nurturing. Basically, he wanted me to learn independently, and hence he never told me how to do my research. Instead I would often find myself sitting in his office, and he would be asking me a whole lot of questions until an idea, plan of action and solution occurred to me. Once, he jokingly described me as a ‘coffee brewer’ and explained that he needed to send me off to ponder upon problems because like a coffee brewer, I needed the time to ‘brew’ so that the results would be ‘aromatic’. Over that period of time, Dick had influenced 2 Introduction. Issues in language planning and policy: From global to local me greatly in the way I work; he had shown me the importance of academic integrity, honesty, hard work and never to be afraid to ask questions. This book was a joint project between us but it was put on hold for three years. Therefore, I will like to thank all the authors in this book for their contributions to make this book a reality. Included in this book are some of Dick’s friends and colleagues, who are also some of the most influential figures in the contemporary field of language planning and policy – Ulrich Amon, Jasone Cenoz, Francisco Gomes de Matos, Durk Gorter, Robert B. Kaplan, Jan Kruse, Anthony J. Liddicoat, Daniel Perrin, Bernard Spolsky and Christa van der Walt. The ideas in this book were from Dick and they were drawn from our book chapter titled Global language: (De)Colonisation in the New Era published in 2011a1. Dick’s interest was to highlight how the different ‘glob-national’ (Global national) actors have been involved in intended and unintended language planning and policy (LPP) and their impact on multilingual language use. For a long time, LPP has been done mostly at the national or government level. However in this globalised world, Dick opined that LPP is also done at the global level. To him, the emergence of global actors has to a certain extent artificially directed the choices of language use in various parts of the world. He brought attention to the role of these global actors and how their policies have strengthened or weakened the status of both majority and minority languages in polities around the world. This idea is in line with the premise that the emergence of transnational corporations has led to the expansion of the global capitalist system (Sklair, 2000; 2002), as such trends eventually lead to global production, promotion of international outsourcing of labour and materials, as well as the emphasis on finance driven performance (Robinson, 2003; 2004). In the long run, the emergence of the integrated international economy has privileged certain advanced industrialised economies and emerging markets. Under these circumstances, LPP in this 21st century has taken new multiple structures that include global actors because external influences, such as economic demands play a significant role in influencing the types of languages and the standard that learners should attain. For example, there has been an increase in demand of learning English in many developing and emerging economies because English provides the learners a strong economic advantage in this globalised economy (The British Council, 2013). Currently, about more than 75 countries have English as their dominant or one of the foreign languages learned (Herther, 2009), and in the Association of Southeast Asia Nations (ASEAN), English is the lingua franca throughout the ten countries (Kirkpatrick, 2010). Research has also found that English-medium instruction programmes and courses are increasingly offered in many European tertiary institutions (Jensen et al., 2013; Werther et al., 2014). 1 Chua, S. K. C., & Baldauf, R. B. Jr. (2011a). Global language: [De]colonization in the new era. In Hinkel, E (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Learning and Teaching (Vol 2). New York: Routledge: 952-969. Introduction. Issues in language planning and policy: From global to local 3 Global languages, such as French, German, Japanese, Spanish and recently Mandarin, are popular languages to learn, and English has been by far the most favoured language to acquire. Supported by ‘The Rise of the Network Society’ (Castells, 1996; 1997; 1998), new communication technologies, particularly the invention of the telephone, radio, television, movies, records, press and presently the Internet, “any language [English] at the centre of such an explosion of international activity would suddenly have found itself with a global status” (Crystals, 2003: 10). Inevitably, English has become the “world language” (Brutt-Griffler, 2002). In view of such converging trend, some globalisation theorists believed that the world is becoming homogenised in this new global era and learning English is one such consequence (Phillipson, 1996; Johnson, 2009; The Economist, 2011). For instance, homogenisation theories such as Robertson (1992), pioneering in globlisation theory, stated that the process of globalisation has led to the compression and integration of the world, and for Giddens (1990), the universalisation of modernity, and such modern universalism has given rise to English as a powerful economic tool. Despite this general movement towards embracing English as the global language and the emergence of the global actors that seem to push for the learning of English, heterogeneous globalisation theorists argued that globalisation has also led to cultural autonomy, cultural clashes and polarisation (Robinson, 2008), and that is, the promotion of cultural diversity. Kellner (2002) explained that the process of globalisation is highly complex, contradictory and ambiguous. For example, global brands such as Facebook, Starbucks, and Coca Cola are seen and felt in many countries around the world; however, such perceived homogenisation does not necessary mean that there is a general loss of identity. On the contrary, globalisation has also enabled certain cultures and languages to shine on a global level, such as Bollywood from India, Anime from Japan and the Korean wave from South Korea. In view of this diverging trend, the important concept of ‘agency’ ‒ “who has the power to influence change in these micro language policy and planning situations” (Baldauf, 2006: 147) − has become important in LPP. Building on Ricento and Hornberger’s (1996) concept of “unpeeling the onion” whereby there are different English Language Teaching (ELT) professionals involved in LPP, Li (2008) proposed three distinct groups of actors in LPP ‒ the state at the macro/national level, the institutions at the meso level (eg. schools, the media, private and public organisations and business organisations) and teachers at the micro level. Baldauf (2006) emphasised that LPP should include both macro and micro planning. He highlighted that at the macro level, large scale and usually national planning that normally encompasses four aspects: status planning (about society), corpus planning (about language), language-in-education or “acquisition” planning, and prestige planning (about image). At the micro level, he stressed that ecological context has gained greater emphasis as different actors have aquired the power to determine how national policies are played out at the ground level. For example, businesses, institutions and organisations exert a strong influence on the types of 4 Introduction. Issues in language planning and policy: From global to local language used. Therefore in his work, Baldauf posited that although the macro level plays an important role in setting out agenda and allocating resources in LPP, there are different levels of language planning whereby the context, roles and motivations of the different groups of actors play a critical role in the success or failure in LPP. In view of this claim, Chua and Baldauf’s (2011b)2 chapter on Micro Language Planning proposed that the policy translation process can be problematic due to the multiple layers of actors involved. Language policies made at the national level are subject to a number of contextual influences and not all micro language planning is related to macro policies since local players are also empowered to accept or reject national policies. With every negotiation in the policy implementation process by the different actors, there will be intended and unintended outcomes. In the chapter, Chua and Baldauf (2011b) suggested four stages of planning process. The first two stages – Supra Macro and Macro operational levels that usually produced standardised results. The next two stages – Micro and Infra Micro operational levels that usually produce diversified results (see Figure 1). Fig. 1.1: The four stages and ten levels of macro and micro planning (Taken from Chua & Baldauf, 2011b: 940). 2 Chua, S. K. C., & Baldauf, R. B. Jr. (2011b). Micro Language Planning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of Research in Second Language Learning and Teaching (Vol 2). New York: Routledge: 936-951. Introduction. Issues in language planning and policy: From global to local 5 Figure 1.1 illustrates that the multiple forces exhibited by different actors (explicit and hidden) at different levels that facilitate and shape language management in any countries and the languages that they use. An important point to note is that unlike the classical language planning perspective, Figure 1.1 shows that the translation process may not follow a linear pattern.