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 Europ ean nation states by 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 deliberate efforts to influence the behavior corpus planning (including Haugen’s language planning activities) of others with respect to the acquisition, structure or functional status planning - government recognition of one language in relation to others (Cooper 1996: 32) allocation of their language codes. (1996: 45, his italics) e.g. the relations between a national language and regional or minority languages. the distinction miggppht appear clear cut in theory, but Coop er admits that Today status planning has been broadened: the allocation of languages or this might not be the case in practice (1996: 32) language varieties to given functions (Cooper 1996: 32) e.g. which language(s) is (are) the official language and the medium (media) to 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 attainment of non- recognising more than one (or two) languages. linguistic ends such as consumer protection, scientific exchange, given the assumed language-culture link, an official policy of national integration, political control, economic development, the multilingualism would act as “a centrifugal force” and rouse ethnic creation of new elites or the maintenance of old ones, the pacification political aspirations (Blommaert 1996: 211-12) or cooption of minority groups, and mass mobilization of national or political movements. (Cooper 1996: 35) Eurocentric monolingual and monocultural bias evident: it is assumed that every individual has one and only one ethnolinguistic there are always ideological assumptions and political imperatives identity: s/he speaks one language (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) language can be characterised as a form of cultural capital increasingly, language planning activities are being termed language policy and 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 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 , but also with the historical and cultural processes that have influenced, and continue to influence, societal attitudes and practices with (politically and economically) dominant social groups exercise most regard to language use, acquisition and status. (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 the ed uca tion sys tem other languages (varieties) become delegitimised a partilicular symblibolic ord er ihis thus imposed 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 = cultura l capit a l, fdfundamen tlttal to socia l 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 a deterministic process of reproduction: We can trade forms of capital, but […] Bourdieu fails to show how actors can actually intervene to change how things happen. (Pennycook, 2001: 126) The power of dominant groups is not monolithic and […] in every situation where there are asymmetrical relations of power between groups, [… ] there are always interstices; that is, spaces where interactional order structures fail to seal hermetically, and which provide sites […] where different practices of resistance (those of students and/or 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 Graded Intergenerational Disruption Scale 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 seeks to be directive or implicational vis-à-vis social action, rather than merely descriptive or analytic of the sociocultural 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