Language Policy

D. Johnson

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2013
• ISBN:
  9781137316202
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Sociolinguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

A detailed overview of the theories, concepts, research methods, and findings in the field of language policy is provided here in one accessible source. The author proposes new methodological, theoretical, and conceptual directions and offers guidance for doing language policy research.

Part I
Laying the Groundwork: Definitions, Theories, and Concepts

1

What is language policy?

Chapter outline

1.1 Definitions

1.2 Types

1.3 Example language policies

1.4 Discussion

The natural first question is: What is language policy? The question is commonly asked in books on the topic but concrete definitions are less common than discussions of language policy in terms of types, goals, or examples. This chapter will take both approaches by first examining and synthesizing definitions already in circulation and then looking at some example language policies to see how these definitions hold up. Complicating the question is the relationship between language policy and the term that preceded it, language planning. Most would agree that language policy and language planning are closely related but different activities. Some argue that language planning subsumes language policy (Kaplan and Baldauf 1997) while others argue that language policy subsumes language planning (Schiffman 1996). For the title of this book, the term language policy is adopted for two reasons: (1) terminological simplicity, and (2) within accepted definitions of language planning, there is an assumption that some agent(s) makes a plan intended to influence language forms or functions, yet, there are many examples of language policy that are not intentional and/or not planned. However, throughout much of the book I will use language planning and policy, often referred to as LPP, both out of respect for the tradition of research that gave rise to the field (language planning) and because the two fields have, for all intents and purposes, coalesced into one (Hornberger 2006a). The historical trajectory of these terms will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 2.

1.1 Definitions

Five definitions of language policy may help us arrive at an appropriate synthesis. The first is from Kaplan and Baldauf (1997) who argue that a language policy is part of the larger process of language planning:

Quote 1.1 Kaplan and Baldauf

The exercise of language planning leads to, or is directed by, the promulgation of a language policy by government (or other authoritative body or person). A language policy is a body of ideas, laws, regulations, rules and practices intended to achieve the planned language change in the societies, group or system.

(Kaplan and Baldauf 1997: xi)

Kaplan and Baldauf portray language policy as a set of laws or regulations or rules enacted by an authoritative body (like a government) as part of a language plan. Certainly, what Kaplan and Baldauf describe here is language policy but other activities can be considered language policy as well. Language policies do not need to be enacted by an authoritative body – they can emerge from a bottom-up movement or grassroots organization – and not all language policies are intentional or carefully planned.

Quote 1.2 Harold F. Schiffman

[L]anguage policy is primarily a social construct. It may consist of various elements of an explicit nature – juridical, judicial, administrative, constitutional and/or legal language may be extant in some jurisdictions, but whether or not a polity has such explicit text, policy as a cultural construct rests primarily on other conceptual elements – belief systems, attitudes, myths – the whole complex that we are referring to as linguistic culture, which is the sum totality of ideas, values, beliefs, attitudes, prejudices, religious strictures, and all the other cultural ‘baggage’ that speakers bring to their dealings with language from their background.

Schiffman’s primary argument is that language policy is grounded in linguistic culture and examining one without the other is “probably futile, if not simply trivial” (Schiffman 1996: 5). Captured within this definition are both explicit policies enacted by a polity but also policy as a cultural construct, which relies on the implicit language beliefs, attitudes, and ideologies within a speech community. He further argues that, too often, elements within the linguistic culture (language use, attitudes, etc.) are portrayed as an outcome of language policy “when it is clear that they are elements underlying the policy. That is, conclusions are drawn about supposedly causal relationships between language and policy that seem to me totally turned around” (Schiffman 1996: 3). The point about causal relationships is important and careful language policy research should not make causative claims about policy creator intentions, policy language, and policy outcomes without clear evidence. We should not a priori attribute language and educational practices to policy since they could have arisen without, or in spite of, any policy support.

Quote 1.3 Bernard Spolsky

A useful first step is to distinguish between the three components of the language policy of a speech community: (1) its language practices – the habitual pattern of selecting among the varieties that make up its linguistic repertoire; (2) its language beliefs or ideology – the beliefs about language and language use; and (3) any specific efforts to modify or influence that practice by any kind of language intervention, planning, or management.

(Spolsky 2004: 5 [numbering mine])

Spolsky (2004) distinguishes between three components of what he calls the language policy of a speech community (Quote 1.3). Each of the tripartite set of components is explained in detail in the first chapter of Spolsky’s book. The third part of the definition references traditional conceptualizations of intentional language planning and policy development (language management, in Spolsky’s terms, 2009) and is contrasted with the first two components – practices and beliefs – which are not necessarily planned or intentional. As he says, language ideology is “language policy with the manager left out, what people think should be done” (Spolsky 2004: 14). The idea that language policies are engendered by the beliefs and ideologies within a speech community is very similar to Schiffman’s notion of the close connection between language policies and linguistic culture. The difference seems to be that, while Schiffman avers that language policy is grounded in language beliefs and ideologies, Spolsky portrays such beliefs and ideologies as language policy. As well, he includes language practices, not occurring as a result of, or resulting in, language policies, but as language policies in and of themselves.

Quote 1.4 Teresa McCarty

I have characterized language policy as a complex sociocultural process [and as] modes of human interaction, negotiation, and production mediated by relations of power. The ‘policy’ in these processes resides in their language-regulating power; that is, the ways in which they express normative claims about legitimate and illegitimate language forms and uses, thereby governing language statuses and uses.

(McCarty 2011b: 8).

McCarty offers a unique definition based on a sociocultural approach, also described as New Language Policy Studies (McCarty, Collins, and Hopson 2011), and views language policy not simply as “top-down” or “bottom-up” but multi-layered and, similarly to Schiffman and Spolsky, while she recognizes official government texts as potential language policies, she is more interested in how language policy is produced in human interaction and negotiation. Policies regulate language use and are evident in the “everyday ideologically saturated language-regulating mechanisms that construct social hierarchies” (McCarty et al. 2011: 339). This definition also includes an important critical perspective, portraying policies as mechanisms that produce power asymmetries.

A critical conceptualization of policy is at the fore of Tollefson’s (1991) definition, which positions “language policy” within critical theory:

Quote 1.5 James. W. Tollefson

[L]anguage planning-policy means the institutionalization of language as a basis for distinctions among social groups (classes). That is, language policy is one mechanism for locating language within social structure so that language determines who has access to political power and economic resources. Language policy is one mechanism by which dominant groups establish hegemony in language use.

(Tollefson 1991: 16)

Tollefson (1991) implemented an invaluable critical conceptualization into language planning and policy research that has proven to be very influential. His approach is influenced by critical theory and draws on the work of Habermas (e.g. 1973), Giddens (e.g. 1971), and Foucault (e.g. 1979), among others. As his definition makes clear, Tollefson views language policy as a mechanism of power, which institutionalizes language hierarchies that privilege dominant groups/languages and denies equal access to political power and economic resources. A later re-formulation (2013b: 27) emphasizes how language polices create systems of inequality but also how they resist such inequality. His critical language policy (CLP) approach is taken up in a number of places in this book, but particularly in 2.3.

These definitions create some challenges for the field. Traditional notions of policy portray it as something that some governing entity or polity enacts and when we hear the word “policy”, we tend to think about government policies or laws or some type of regulation that comes from on high. Yet, as Schiffman and Spolsky point out, language policies exist across many different layers or levels, from official governmental law to the language practices of a family for example (see King and Fogle 2006 on family language policy). Further, policies can be official regulations enacted by some authoritative body (Kaplan and Baldauf) as well as unofficial principles and cultural constructs that emerge within a community (McCarty, Schiffman, Spolsky). Spolsky argues that “language policy” encompasses both beliefs and ideologies about language as well as language practices. One is left to wonder, however, if all language ideologies and practices are actual language policies. Does subsuming language ideology and language practices under the umbrella term “language policy” mean that whenever an individual has an attitude about language or produces an utterance, those beliefs and actions, in and of themselves, are language policies? These definitions highlight the important connection between language ideologies and language policies (e.g. McGroarty 2013); for example, a policy can emerge from particular language ideologies, a policy can engender language ideologies, or a policy can be interpreted and appropriated in ways that depend on language ideologies. However, it still seems helpful to distinguish between language ideology and language policy as distinct, albeit interconnected, concepts.

Another challenge is considering whether all modes of human interaction – i.e., language practices – constitute actual policies? Are all patterns in conversations, utterances, and interactions language policies? McCarty (2011b) appears to distance herself from this position by asserting that the ‘policy’ is the language-regulating mechanism within the language practices. How do language practices described as language policies differ from established terms already in use like norms of interaction (Hymes 1972b) or discourses (Foucault 1978)? Are they one and the same thing? (see Bonacina 2010, and discussed in this volume, section 3.3 who argues that they are.) Language practices are influenced by, products of, producers of, and instantiations of language policies but unless a part of the interaction results in a policy (e.g. a teacher utters a declarative speech act, which has the effect of policy, like “Only English can be used for this activity!”), the value of conflating all language practices as language policies is not clear. For example, at the dinner table, a parent might clear their throat when a child uses forbidden language with the intention of reprimanding and/or warning the child. While the clearing of the throat expresses, or instantiates, the policy, the act and the policy are still separate things. The policy (don’t use language X at the dinner table) precedes the other (clearing of the throat) and the existence of the latter relies on the former since the policy could exist with or without the speech act while the pragmatic content of the speech act would be meaningless (or at least, not have the meaning “don’t use language X”) without the policy.

Finally, regarding a critical conceptualization of policy, while it is important to recognize the power of language policies to marginalize minority and indigenous languages and their users, language policies can also have the opposite effect, specifically when they are designed to promote access to, education in, and use of minority and indigenous languages. Thus, critical conceptualizations need to be balanced with the recognition that language policies can be an important, indeed integral, part of the promotion, maintenance, and revitalization of minority and indigenous languages around the world (even if this has not been the trend, historically). This aspect of policy needs to be further promoted if we are to be successful in protecting threatened languages and promoting the educational and economic rights and opportunities for indigenous and minority language users. The balance between structure and agency in LPP research – between a critical conceptualization of policy as a mechanism of power and a grassroots understanding of the power of language policy agents to interact with policy processes in unique and unpredictable ways – is a theme I will return to throughout the book.

Based on these definitions, I offer the following:

Concept 1.1 Language policy defined

A language policy is a policy mechanism that impacts the structure, function, use, or acquisition of language and includes:

1. Official regulations – often enacted in the form of written documents, intended to effect some change in the form, function, use, or acquisition of language – which can influence economic, political, and educational opportunity;

2. Unofficial, covert, de facto, and implicit mechanisms, connected to language beliefs and practices, that have regulating power over language use and interaction within communities, workplaces, and schools;

3. Not just products but processes – “policy” as a verb, not a...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of figures and tables
• General Editors’ preface
• Acknowledgements
• Part I Laying the Groundwork: Definitions, Theories, and Concepts
• Part II Findings
• Part III Researching Language Policy
• Part IV Resources
• References
• Index