Language planning

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about the field of language planning and policy. See Constructed language for details on the creation of planned or artificial languages. Language planning is a deliberate effort to influence the function, structure, or acquisition of languages or language variety within a speech community.[1] It is often associated with government planning, but is also used by a variety of non-governmental organizations, such as grassroots organizations and even individuals. The goals of language planning differ depending on the nation or organization, but generally include making planning decisions and possibly changes for the benefit of communication. Planning or improving effective communication can also lead to other social changes such as language shift or assimilation, thereby providing another motivation to plan the structure, function and acquisition of languages.[2] Language engineering involves the creation of natural language processing systems whose cost and outputs are measurable and predictable as well as establishment of language regulators, such as formal or informal agencies, committees, societies or academies as language regulators to design or develop new structures to meet contemporary needs.[3] It is a distinct field contrasted to natural language processing andcomputational linguistics.[4] A recent trend of language engineering is the use of Semantic Web technologies for the creation, archival, processing, and retrieval of machine processable language data.[5]

[edit]Language

planning and language ideology

Four overarching language ideologies motivate decision making in language planning.[2] The first, linguistic assimilation, is the belief that every member of a society, irrespective of his native language, should learn and use the dominant language of the society in which he lives. A quintessential example is the Englishonly movement in the United States. Linguistic assimilation stands in direct contrast to the second ideology, linguistic pluralism - the recognition and support of multiple languages within one society. Examples include the coexistence of French, German, Italian, and Romansh in Switzerland and the shared status ofEnglish, Malay, Tamil, and Chinese in Singapore. The coexistence of many languages may not necessarily arise from a conscious language ideology, but rather from the efficiency in communication of a common language. The third ideology, vernacularization, denotes the restoration and development of an indigenous language along with its adoption by the state as an official language. Examples include Hebrew in the state of Israel and Quechua in Peru. The final ideology, internationalization, is the adoption of a non-indigenous language of wider communication as an official language or in a particular domain, such as the use of English in Singapore, India, the Philippines, and Papua New Guinea.

[edit]Language

planning goals

Eleven Language Planning Goals have been recognized (Nahir 2003):[6] 1. Language Purification prescription of usage in order to preserve the linguistic purity of language, protect language from foreign influences, and guard against language deviation from within 2. Language Revival the attempt to turn a language with few or no surviving native speakers back into a normal means of communication[7] 3. Language Reform deliberate change in specific aspects of language, like orthography, spelling, or grammar, in order to facilitate use 4. Language Standardization the attempt to garner prestige for a regional language or dialect, transforming it into one that is accepted as the major language, or standard language, of a region 5. Language Spread the attempt to increase the number of speakers of one language at the expense of another 6. 7. 8. 9. Lexical Modernization word creation or adaptation Terminology Unification development of unified terminologies, primarily in technical domains Stylistic Simplification simplification of language usage in lexicon, grammar, and style Interlingual Communication facilitation of linguistic communication between members of distinct speech communities 10. Language Maintenance preservation of the use of a groups native language as a first or second language where pressures threaten or cause a decline in the status of the language 11. Auxiliary-Code Standardization standardization of marginal, auxiliary aspects of language such as signs for the deaf, place names, or rules of transliteration and transcription

[edit]Types

of language planning

Language planning has been divided into three types:

[edit]Status

planning

Status planning is the allocation or reallocation of a language or variety to functional domains within a society, thus affecting the status, or standing, of a language.

[edit]Language status
Language status is a concept distinct from, though intertwined with, language prestige and language function. Strictly speaking, language status is the position or standing of a language vis--vis other languages.[8]A language garners status according to the fulfillment of four attributes, described in the same year, 1968, by two different authors, Heinz Kloss and William Stewart. Both Kloss and Stewart stipulated

four qualities of a language that determine its status. While Kloss and Stewarts respective frameworks differ slightly, they emphasize four common attributes: 1. 2. Language origin whether a given language is indigenous or imported to the speech community Degree of standardization the extent of development of a formal set of norms that define correct usage 3. Juridical status 1. 2. Sole official language (e.g. French in France and Turkish in Turkey) Joint official language (e.g. English and Afrikaans in South Africa; French, German, Italian and Romansh in Switzerland) 3. 4. Regional official language (e.g. Igbo in Nigeria; Marathi in Maharastra, India) Promoted language lacks official status on a national or regional level but is promoted and sometimes used by public authorities for specific functions (e.g. Spanish in New Mexico; West African Pidgin English in Cameroon) 5. Tolerated language neither promoted nor proscribed; acknowledged but ignored (e.g. Native American languages in the United States) 6. Proscribed language discouraged by official sanction or restriction (e.g. Basque and Catalan during Francisco Francos regime in Spain; Macedonian in Greece)[9] 4. Vitality the ratio, or percent, of users of a language to another variable, like the total population.[2] Kloss and Stewart both distinguish six classes of statistical distribution. However, they draw the line between classes at different percentages. According to Kloss, the first class, the highest level of vitality, is demarcated by 90% or more speakers. The five remaining classes in decreasing order are 70-89%, 40-69%, 20-39%, 3-19% and less than 3%. According to Stewart, on the other hand, the six classes are determined by the following percentages: 75%, 50%, 25%, 10%, 5%, and less than 5%. Together, origin, degree of standardization, juridical status, and vitality dictate a languages status.

William Stewart outlines ten functional domains in language planning:[10] 1. Official - An official language "function[s] as a legally appropriate language for all politically and culturally representative purposes on a nationwide basis."[10] Often, the official function of a language is specified in a constitution. 2. Provincial - A provincial language functions as an official language for a geographic area smaller than a nation, typically a province or region (e.g. French in Quebec)[11]

3.

Wider communication - A language of wider communication is a language that may be official or provincial, but more importantly, functions as a medium of communication across language boundaries within a nation (e.g. Hindi in India; Swahili language in East Africa)[11]

4.

International - An international language functions as a medium of communication across national boundaries (e.g. English)[11]

5.

Capital - A capital language functions as a prominent language in and around a national capital (e.g. Dutch and French in Brussels)[11]

6.

Group - A group language functions as a conventional language among the members of a single cultural or ethnic group (e.g. Hebrew amongst the Jews)[11]

7.

Educational - An educational language functions as a medium of instruction in primary and secondary schools on a regional or national basis (Urdu in West Pakistan and Bengali in East Pakistan)[11]

8.

School subject - A school subject language is a language that is taught as a subject in secondary school or higher education (e.g. Latin and Ancient Greek in English schools)[11]

9.

Literary - A literary language functions as a language for literary or scholarly purposes (Ancient Greek)[11]

10. Religious - A religious language functions as a language for the ritual purposes of a particular religion (e.g. Latin for the Latin Rite within the Roman Catholic Church; Arabic for the reading of the Qur'an)[11] Robert Cooper, in reviewing Stewart's list, makes several additions. First, he creates three sub-types of official functions: statutory, working, and symbolic.[11] A statutory language is a language that a government has declared official by law. A working language is a language that a government uses as a medium for daily activities, and a symbolic language is a language that is merely a symbol of the state. Cooper also adds two functional domains to Stewart's list: mass media and work.

[edit]Corpus

planning

Corpus planning refers to the prescriptive intervention in the forms of a language, whereby planning decisions are made to engineer changes in the structure of the language.[12] Corpus planning activities often arise as the result of beliefs about the adequacy of the form of a language to serve desired functions.[13] Unlike status planning, which is primarily undertaken by administrators and politicians, corpus planning generally involves planners with greater linguistic expertise.[12] There are three traditionally recognized types of corpus planning: graphization, standardization, and modernization.

[edit]Graphization
Graphization refers to development, selection and modification of scripts and orthographic conventions for a language.[14] The use of writing in a speech community can have lasting sociocultural effects, which

include easier transmission of material through generations, communication with larger numbers of people, and a standard against which varieties of spoken language are often compared.[15] Linguist Charles A. Ferguson made two key observations about the results of adopting a writing system. First, the use of writing adds another variety of the language to the communitys repertory. Although written language is often viewed as secondary to spoken language, the vocabulary, grammatical structures and phonological structures of a language often adopt characteristics in the written form that are distinct from the spoken variety. Second, the use of writing often leads to a folk belief that the written language is the real language, and speech is a corruption of it. Written language is viewed as more conservative, while the spoken variety is more susceptible to language change. However, this view ignores the possibility that isolated relic areas of the language may be less innovative than the written form or the written language may have been based on a divergent variety of the spoken language.[15] In establishing a writing system for a language, corpus planners have the option of using an existing system or inventing a new one. The Ainu of Japan chose to adopt the Japanese languages katakana syllabaryas the writing system for the Ainu language. Katakana is designed for a language with a basic CV syllable structure, but Ainu contains many CVC syllables that cannot easily be adapted to this syllabary. As a result, Ainu uses a modified katakana system, in which syllablefinal codas are consonants by a subscript version of a katakana symbol that begins with the desired consonant.[14] An example on an invented script includes the development of the Armenian script in 405 AD by St. Mesrop Mashtots. Though the script was modeled after the Greek alphabet, the original script distinguished Armenian from the Greek and Syriac alphabets of the neighboring peoples.[11]

[edit]Standardization
Standardization is the process by which one variety of a language takes precedence over other social and regional dialects of a language.[16] This variety comes to be understood as supra-dialectal and the best form of the language.[15] The choice of which language takes precedence has important societal consequences, as it confers privilege upon speakers whose spoken and written dialect conforms closest to the chosen standard.[17] The standard that is chosen as the norm is generally spoken by the most powerful social group within the society, and is imposed upon the less powerful groups as the form to emulate. This often reinforces the dominance of the powerful social group and makes the standard norm necessary for socioeconomic mobility.[12] In practice, standardization generally entails increasing the uniformity of the norm, as well as the codification of the norm.[15] The history of English provides an example of standardization occurring over an extended time period, without formally recognized language planning. The standardization process began when William Caxtonintroduced the printing press in England in 1476. This was the accompanied by the adoption of the south-east Midlands variety of English, spoken in London, as the print language. Because of the dialects

use for administrative and literary purposes, this variety became entrenched as the prestigious variety of English. After the creation of grammars and dictionaries in the 18th century, the rise of print capitalism,industrialization, urbanization, and mass education led to the dissemination of this dialect as the standard norm for the English language.

[edit]Modernization
Modernization is a form of language planning that occurs when a language needs to expand its resources to meet functions. Modernization often occurs when a language undergoes a shift in status, such as when acountry gains independence from a colonial power or when there is a change in the language education policy.[16] The most significant force in modernization is the expansion of the lexicon, which allows the language to discuss topics in modern semantic domains. Language planners generally focus on creating new lists and glossaries to describe new technical terms, but it is also necessary to ensure that the new terms are consistently used by the appropriate sectors within society. While some languages such as Japanese and Hungarian have experienced rapid lexical expansion to meet the demands of modernization, other languages such as Hindi and Arabic have failed to do so.[15] Rapid lexical expansion is aided by the use of new terms in textbooks and professional publications, as well as frequent use among specialists. Issues of linguistic purism often play a significant role in lexical expansion, but technical vocabulary can be effective within a language, regardless of whether it comes from the languages own process of word formation or from heavy borrowing from another language.[15] While Hungarian has almost exclusively used language-internal processes to create new lexical items, Japanese has borrowed extensively from English to derive new words as part of its modernization.

[edit]Acquisition

planning

Acquisition planning is a type of language planning in which a national, state or local government system aims to influence aspects of language, such as language status, distribution and literacy through education. Acquisition planning can also be used by non-governmental organizations, but it is more commonly associated with government planning.[18] Frequently, acquisition planning is integrated into a larger language planning process in which the statuses of languages are evaluated, corpuses are revised and the changes are finally introduced to society on a national, state or local level through education systems, ranging from primary schools to universities.[19] This process of change can entail a variety of modifications, such as an alteration in student textbook formatting, a change in methods of teaching an official language or the development of a bilingual language program, only to name a few. For example, if a government decides to raise the status level of a certain language or change its level of prestige, it can establish a law that requires teachers to teach only in this language or that textbooks are written using only this languages script. This, in turn, would support the elevation of the languages status or could increase its prestige. In this way,

acquisition planning is often used to promote language revitalization, which can change a languages status or reverse a language shift, or to promote linguistic purism.[20] In a case where a government revises a corpus, new dictionaries and educational materials will need to be revised in schools in order to maintain effective language acquisition.

[edit]The education sector

The education ministry or education sector of government is typically in charge of making national language acquisition decisions based on state and local evaluation reports. The responsibilities of education sectors vary by country; Robert B. Kaplan and Richard B. Baldauf describe the sectors six principal goals[1]: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. To decide what languages should be taught within the curriculum. To determine the amount and quality of teacher training. To involve local communities. To determine what materials will be used and how they will be incorporated into syllabi. To establish a local and state assessment system to monitor progress. To determine financial costs.

[edit]Problems
Although acquisition planning can be useful to governments, there are several problems that must be considered.[21] Even with a solid evaluation and assessment system, the effects of planning methods can never be certain; governments must consider the effects on other aspects of state planning, such as economic and political planning. Some proposed acquisition changes could also be too drastic or instituted too suddenly without proper planning and organization. Acquisition planning can also be financially draining, so adequate planning and awareness of financial resources is essential. It is important therefore that government goals, such as those described above, be organized and planned carefully.[21]

[edit]Multilingualism
There is also a growing concern over the treatment of multilingualism in education, especially in many countries that were once colonized.[22] Deciding on which language of instruction would be most beneficial to effective communication on the local and state level is a task requiring thoughtful planning and is surrounded by debate. Some states prefer instruction only in the official language, but some aim to foster linguistic and thus social diversity by encouraging teaching in several (native) languages. One reason some states prefer a single language of instruction is that it supports national unity and homogeneity.[23] Some states prefer incorporating different languages in order to help students learn better by giving them diverse perspectives.

[edit]Non-governmental organizations

In addition to the education sector, there are non-governmental sectors or organizations that have a significant impact on language acquisition, such as the Acadmie franaise of France or the Real Academia Espaola of Spain.[1] These organizations often create their own dictionaries and grammar books, thus affecting the materials students are exposed to in schools. Although these organizations do not hold official power, they influence government planning decisions, such as with educational materials, effecting acquisition.[1]

Successes and Failures in Language Planning in Bangladesh

Introduction Languages are sensitive and sentimental issues in Bangladesh, which has a near-unique history of sacrificing lives for protecting its national language, Bangla (Hamid, 2006; Mohsin, 2003; Musa, 1996). English, which came to Bangladesh in the wake of British colonial rule (1757-1947), thus relates to Bangla in a complex, controversial way. Language planning discourses in Bangladesh seem to have assumed that the two languages are bound in sort of zero-sum relationship, which means promotion of one language affects the other (Alam, 2002; Imam, 2005). Therefore, language planning in the polity has to be a balancing act. Such acts ensure that the enhancement of English for strengthening the human resource efforts of the Government of Bangladesh (Ministry of Education, 2003) does not ignore the mother tongue or the martyrs of the Bangla Language Movement of 1952 (Hossain & Tollefson, 2007; Musa, 1996). However, the idea of balanced language planning applies only to the public or state sector; the private sector does not fall within the purview of macro language planning. So the promotion of English in the latter does not have to be accompanied by simultaneous promotion of Bangla. This public-private domain distinction is useful in understanding Bangla-English relations in the polity since successes and failures in language planning in Bangladesh can only be understood within a framework of the contrasting language rules that apply to the public and private sectors. Bathed in nationalistic fervours, language policies in post-independence Bangladesh promoted Bangla at the expense of English (Rahman, 1991; Zaman, 2004). Bangla, which is spoken by 98% of the population, was needed for the formation of national identity. Not surprisingly, it was made the sole national language and was awarded constitutional recognition in 1972 (Banu & Sussex, 2001). Furthermore, Bangla was to become the medium of instruction at all levels of education (Ministry of Education, 1974: 15), and the language of internal communication in government autonomous and semi-government offices (Alam, 2002: 525). The institution of Bangla in

government administration and education reduced the role of English to a substantial degree (Rahman, 1991; Banu & Sussex, 2001). As Rahman (1991: 47) noted, English hitherto dominating the educated, commercial and social scene was relegated, due to a shift in emphasis and in national outlook, to a secondary position. In hindsight, relegating the role and status of English in the 1970s can be seen as a failure in language planning on the part of the state. It is widely believed that the standards of English in

1 Studies such as this (e.g. Nunan, 2003) often involve outsiders collecting data from or with the assistance of informants to generalize about insider issues and problems. While this is a perfectly good data collection technique, it can lead to critical comments about such work (e.g., Beckett & Macpherson, 2005) as being unrepresentative. In our Language Planning and Policy monograph series, Bob Kaplan and I (Baldauf) have adopted the policy of getting qualified insiders to describe their language situation, thereby providing local insights for further analysis. As Pennycook (1998: 126) has noted in relation to Hong Kong, in order to make sense of language policies we need to understand both their location historically and their location contextually. Too often we view these things through the lens of liberalism, pluralism or anti-imperialism, without understanding the actual location of such policies. This paper extends this perspective to cross-polity analysis. Polity authors have been asked to speak for themselves and their polities, and invited to contribute to the introductory and concluding discussions. Baldaufs role has been to try to organize the topic and some resources so the discussion can take place, both within the paper and in the symposium. Authors are listed alphabetically. Successes and Failures in Language Planning for European Languages in Asian Nations (4/35) the country deteriorated severely because of the reduced role ascribed to English (Rahman, 1999; Zaman, 2003). As English was downsized in the public sector, it found fertile new territory in the

private sector. Thus private English medium education was introduced for the wealthy. English medium schools have now mushroomed in Dhaka and other metropolitan areas, and the exclusive nature of these schools operating through the English medium may have created the class stratification of access to English (Rahman, 2007: 71). So the state must address itself to the question whether it wants to have a more egalitarian society or to widen the social gulf further, with the knowledge of English as a divisive factor (Choudhury, 2001: 16). The social divide marked by English can be seen within the Bangla-medium public education as well, since proficiency achievement in the language is mediated by such factors as socioeconomic status, private investment in English and geographic location of learners (urban versus rural) (Hamid, in preparation; Hasan, 2003). Added to this is a far deeper split in the population, between those who can afford to go to school and take English lessons and those who cannot (see Tollefson, 2000) in a country where literacy rate is 49.1% (BBS, 2005), and where nearly half of its total population still live below the poverty line (World Bank, 2002). The initial marginalization of English in the early 1970s was reversed within a matter of two decades. Rahman (2007) notes that a number of English planning activities such as a) introducing English in the national curriculum from the first grade and a compulsory study of English for 13 years, b) undertaking donor-funded English teaching projects (e.g. English Language Teaching Improvement Project) for English teacher training, c) introducing compulsory English language courses at the undergraduate level in tertiary colleges and public universities, d) replacing the structural curriculum by Communicative Language Teaching, e) enacting the Private University Act, 1992 which paved the way for the establishment of the English-medium private universities in the country, attest to this revitalization. The revitalization of English was, however, balanced by the promotion of Bangla to some extent. For instance, the introduction of English at the elementary level in 1986 (which was implemented in 1991) can be juxtaposed with the Bengali Implementation Law of 1987, for using Bangla in all spheres and at all levels for government purposes (Banu & Sussex, 2001: 126). Similarly, the introduction of an English foundation course for undergraduate students in 1998 saw a parallel introduction of a Bangla foundation course for the same students at the University of Dhaka (Hamid, 2000). However, while the public education curriculum was burdened with an increase in English as well as Bangla, English medium schools and private universities remained, as ever, untroubled by the question of Bangla.

Currently English occupies 19% of the total curricular load at the secondary level; it is taught for at least one class-hour every day. This curricular load and the length of English instruction in the country (13 years) represent a massive state commitment to English teaching. However, resources allocated to English teaching the meagre Tk. 482 ($6.50) per capita public expenditure on education in general (BBS, 2005) falls far short of the degree of the commitment required. Consequently, quantitative increase in the provision of English compromises its quality (Rahman, 2007; Education Watch, 2006). English teaching at the school level has been largely unsuccessful as students proficiency levels in the language after years of compulsory instruction remain deplorable (Yasmin, 2005). Over 30% of all students who could not pass the national school-leaving examination in 2007 failed in English (Prothom Alo, 17 June, 2007). Considering these realities limited resources for English teaching, and consequently, its poor outcome the large-scale compulsory English teaching can be described as a white elephant project for Bangladesh. Allen (1994: 5, cited in Rahman, 2007: 83), who undertook a project evaluation study, wrote: The present state of English language teaching in Bangladesh represents a significant misapplication of Successes and Failures in Language Planning for European Languages in Asian Nations (5/35) human resources, time and money. Expansion of English in the polity and a popular recognition of its necessity mainly for instrumental ends are some of the features that can be largely attributed to the state planning of the language. Indeed, English is more entrenched in the society now than it was during the colonial days (Kachru, 2005). Nonetheless, English has very limited use in the polity and is still confined to some selected domains such as education. In other words, the large-scale teaching of the language has not led as a consequence to its wider use or application. Of course, the use of English is increasing remarkably in the booming private sector, where, however, code-mixing, rather than exclusive use of English, is the common practice among educated private-sector employees, particularly for spoken communication (Alam, 2006). Because of the limited use of English in the polity in oral communication in particular, the indigenization of the language or the evolution of Banglish (Banu & Sussex, 2001) is at best at its earliest stage. The norm continues to be British Standard English, both for written and spoken communication and supporters of this non-endocentric, colonial norm can be found among English-medium educated academics and other professionals.

Other European Languages Compared to English, other European languages such as French, German and Spanish have a negligible presence in Bangladesh. French, German and Spanish are taught at the Institute of Modern Languages of the University of Dhaka. French is also taught at Alliance Franaise in Dhaka and Chittagong, and German at Goethe Institute in Dhaka. Given the thin presence of these languages in the polity, they have not received any research attention. None of these languages are taught in the national curriculum. Conclusions Whether English in Bangladesh is a foreign or a second language remains debatable (British Council, 1986; Yasmin, 2005; Kachru, 2005). However, English is increasingly penetrating the society and becoming increasingly popular. While the general attitude toward English is characterized by pragmatic liberalism, which sees English as non-threatening to the national language or culture, ambivalent attitude toward English English loved and loathed at the same time also prevails among the people. At the same time, English is an increasing source of socioeconomic divisions. Arguably, a complex range of factors determined by the community of the people in the region rather than any top-down intervention measures imposed by the administration or any external force (Rahman, 2007: 68) explain the situation of English in the polity. However, language planning intervention in various forms has played a crucial part in shaping its presence in different domains and its acquisition. Government intervention has been characterized by a Bangla-English dichotomy in the state sector and a laissez faire attitude in the private sector. Policies have been mostly transitory and short-sighted: after an initial period of reduction and control of English, they gave way to an expansionist zeal, without considering the management of expansion, resource allocation and cost-effectiveness. Thus, the strong, over dominant presence of English in the Bangladeshi curriculum consumes precious national resources but produces hardly any desirable outcomes