scholarly journals Language Policy and Planning

Linguistics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne Romaine

Language policy and planning (hereafter LPLP) is a relatively new multi- and interdisciplinary field, but by no means a new phenomenon. The term ‘language planning’ (preceded by the term ‘language engineering’) emerged in the late 1950s and then developed as part of and in tandem with sociolinguistics and the sociology of language in the 1960s and 1970s. LPLP was initially preoccupied with language problems of developing nations emerging from the breakup of European colonial empires after World War II (see Foundational Works). Multilingualism in newly independent states posed problems to which planners believed they had solutions in the form of deliberate interventions into language, typically imposed top-down by governments and government-authorized agencies and institutions. Although regulation of languages—their status, functions, and linguistic form on a national level—still forms a central part of LPLP (see Areal Studies), its scope has increasingly widened. Scholars recognized that similar problems and issues applied not just to developing nations and were not confined to the nation state, or other macro-level polity, but were also relevant at the supranational as well as meso- and micro-level of individuals, families, multinational corporations, and other organizations. The 1980s and 1990s witnessed a more critical turn. LPLP underwent a series of paradigmatic shifts as the association of language planning with westernized notions of modernization, progress, and democratization was regarded as simplistic and overoptimistic. After having developed one or more ‘official’ languages, some emerging nations realized that their plan not only did not solve political and social problems but instead created new ones. The idea that language could be planned and imposed top-down became increasingly unworkable and ethically questionable. Even in totalitarian regimes LPLP has been less than fully effective or successful. Researchers began to scrutinize some of the hidden or covert agendas and unintended consequences of LPLP, particularly the ways in which top-down LPLP serves the interest of elite groups and marginalizes others. With the collapse of communism and the end of the Cold War, a resurgence of interest in LPLP has occurred amidst a new world order characterized by reemergence of small nations and minority and regional languages, along with development of supranational political frameworks, like the European Union, and the increasing influence of corporations and limitations in the autonomy of nation states. In the 21st century LPLP has been increasingly concerned with internationalization and globalization, especially the role of English as a world language, language endangerment, and migration. A perennial challenge is how to make connections between macro- and micro- levels.

1994 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. vii-xii ◽  
Author(s):  
William Grabe

This volume of the Annual Review of Applied Linguistics returns to a topic first covered in Volume Two (1982). In the time-span between thematic volumes on Language Policy and Planning (LPP), major changes have evolved in the field and recent world events have led practitioners to rethink many issues and concerns related to language policy and planning. In the early 1980s, many LPP discussions centered around various national case studies of language policy and planning; indeed, the stress on policy, as separate from planning, was not often emphasized. The focus on non-national level planning was also not as common as the national-level focus.


2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 17
Author(s):  
Branimir Stanković ◽  
Marija Stefanović

This paper considers the issue of language policy and planning in Serbia, as managed by the main competent institution, the Serbian Language Standardization Committee, a trans-state, national institution dealing with vital issues of language policy and planning. Specifically, assuming a Bourdieusian perspective, it investigates the ideology behind the Committee’s policies, grounded in a series of language myths, and the way these policies influence professionals and everyday language users. The effects of a rigid, strict educational system and a standard language culture by educators are shown in detail focusing on the Torlak dialect in Southern Serbia. The Serbian case reveals a constant promotion of censorship and a heightened understanding of the benefits of self-censorship in the language market. This can be seen in the pressure exerted on certain speakers and the threat their mother tongue represents for their status in the labor market.


1981 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 2-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Braj B. Kachru

The 1970s have ushered in a new phase in approaches to language planning; the preference for a less provocative term such as language policy is indicative of this. There is now a decline in the use of terms such as language planning and language engineering: this is as it should be. For almost tow decades, language planning was presented as a cure-all for culturally and lingustically pluralistic societies in the developing Asian, African, and other non-Western countries. The term was overused, and its applications exaggerated. But this enthusiasm was not shared by all; serious practitioners were conscious of the limitations of the claims and the complexities of the task. This changed attitude has naturally contributed to a reassessment and re-evaluation of these earlier claims. There is now a much better understanding of the linguistic, political, sociological, and attitudinal constraints on language policy formation. The availability of greater cross-linguistic empirical data makes comparative observations more meaningful. As a consequence, the term language planning is now used with caution, with restricted generalization, and with an appreciation of the complexity of each situation. It has rightly been recognized that the task is more complex than linguists can handle within the traditionally conceived boundaries of their discipline, for example, in the work of the venerable Einar Haugen, or more recently, in the work of Charles Ferguson, Joshua Fishman, and others.


Author(s):  
Li Wei

This chapter aims to reconceptualise the notions of community and community languages in late modernity and to recontextualise the discussion of language policy and planning (LPP) with reference to diaspora. The chapter consists of six sections: (1) a critique of the notion of community in late modernity; (2) an analysis of the renewed interest in the notion of diaspora; (3) an examination of the role of language and multilingualism; (4) a discussion of the possibilities and constraints of language policies and planning with regard to mobile and minority communities; (5) consideration of the importance of grassroots language planning actions, especially those that are carried out beyond institutionalised settings; (6) a discussion of the new challenges facing community languages in late modernity, highlighting the dilemmas of post-multilingualism and suggesting translanguaging as a possible solution.


2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 233-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard B. Baldauf Jr

This paper provides a brief overview of the development and state of language policy and planning and examines some of the directions that language planners have been taking to engage with issues of importance to their discipline. The papers in this volume of RBLA are linked to the overview and the directions being taken by scholars in the field.


2020 ◽  
Vol 40 ◽  
pp. 119-127
Author(s):  
Nancy H. Hornberger

AbstractTracing applied linguists’ interests in language policy and planning (LPP) as reflected in the pages of the Annual Review of Applied Linguistics since its founding in 1980, I focus on the emergence of, and current boom in, ethnographic LPP research. I draw on the ethnographic concept of ideological and implementational LPP spaces as scalar, layered policies and practices influencing each other, mutually reinforcing, wedging, and transforming ideology through implementation and vice versa. Doing so highlights how the perennial policy-practice gap is given nuance through exploration of the intertwining dynamics of top-down/bottom-up language planning activities and processes, monoglossic/heteroglossic language ideologies and practices, potential equality/actual inequality of languages, and critical/transformative research paradigms in LPP.


1994 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 82-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard B. Baldauf

Naturally enough, the field of language planning, as its name suggests, has concentrated its efforts on the description and practice of planned language development. This is after all its raison d'être, to provide future oriented, problem-solving language-change strategies to meet particular language needs. This orientation means that language planning is one of the key descriptive topics in applied linguistics, bringing together as it does theory from a variety of disciplines and putting that into practice. Grabe and Kaplan (1992) estimate that the applied linguistics aspects of language policy and planning make up one of four categories that accounts for about 45 percent of the items published in this field.


Author(s):  
David Cassells Johnson

Interdisciplinarity is a hallmark of language policy and planning (LPP) research and reveals how the impact of language plans and policies transcends disciplinary boundaries. Interdisciplinarity also means that clear LPP-specific methods have been slow to develop, if at all. This chapter reviews the methodological history of the field, highlighting major shifts engendered by particular research approaches, and ends with some predictions about where the field might be headed as evidenced by emerging trends. First, epistemological foundations are discussed, which help clarify methodological directions and perspectives. Then, a chronological history of LPP research methods is considered, with particular attention to language planning foundations, the critical and empirical turns, and emerging trends.


2020 ◽  
Vol V (III) ◽  
pp. 77-87
Author(s):  
Ayaz Ahmad ◽  
Liaqat Iqbal ◽  
Irfan Ullah

Immediately after independence in 1947, Urdu became the national language of Pakistan. The constitution of 1973 promised the realization of this goal in Article 251. This paper analyses the causes of its lack of implementation with the help of textual analysis of archival sources. A historical overview of the introduction and domination of the English language in South Asia through colonial machinery explains the reasons for ambivalence about English and Urdu language to be entrenched in the colonial legacy and anticolonial nationalism. The lack of capacity and will combines with the forces for globalism in enhancing the position of the English language in Pakistan. Further, the association of English and Urdu with the existing class division has reduced the debate about language policy to rhetorical postures. The paper proposes a reconsideration of the historical top-down formation of language policy and planning and its replacement with a renewed bottom-up approach where diversity in Pakistan is accessed as a resource instead of treating it as a problem.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document