8.

Applied Sociolinguistics
8.1. Language Planning and Policy
Language planning refers to deliberate efforts to influence the behaviour of others
with respect to the acquisition, structure, or functional allocation of language. Typically, it
will involve the development of goals, objectives and strategies to change the way language
is used. At a governmental level, language planning takes the form of language policy.
Many nations have language regulatory bodies which are specifically charged with
formulating and implementing language planning policies.
Language planning is relatively young as a field of formal academic study, dating
roughly from the 1960s. Much of its literature has been concerned with language issues in
developing countries and in countries undergoing major processes of social, economic or
political change. Despite its recency as an academic field, language planning and policy
have long existed as activities of states and empires, though not explicitly under these labels.
In the absence of formal policies, language decisions have long figured in the agendas of
powerful commercial interests, of modernisers and of writers and stylists. Official language
decisions are imposed as explicit policies handed down by governments. Unofficial policies
result from the pronouncement of language academies or flow from the works of writers or
various authorities such as lexicographers, influential publishers or religious reformers. The
stated reasons for promoting language change often sound noble and frequently cite the
greater good that will result from the change. However, there is usually more at issue than
just language, because decisions about language often lead to benefits for some and loss of
privilege, status and rights for others.
Language can be treated as a code and as social behaviour. As a code, it is a rule-
governed system composed of subsystems. As codes, all languages and varieties of
languages are adequate in allowing their speakers to attribute meaning, to represent logical
thought processes, and generally to communicate among themselves. But language also
involves social behaviour and as such language enters a realm in which there are norms for
behaviour either based upon a consensus regarding what appropriate linguistic behaviour is
or based upon the ability of some individuals to impose their standard on others. Those doing
the imposing believe that there is an inherent superiority in their language norms and
practices over those of others. Such beliefs confuse the adequacy of language as a code with
social rules of appropriateness. They confuse grammar with language etiquette.
Even when studied as a social phenomenon, language is often described in neutral,
technical-sounding terms as a means of communication for social intercourse. Language
however is more aptly viewed as a means of social control. From this perspective, language
planning and policy must consider the social, economic, political and educational contexts
in which groups with unequal power and resources contend with one another. As an
instrument of social control, language often becomes a surrogate for other factors underlying
the language conflict.
The attribution of status to the language varieties can become a subtle means of social
control. The term dialect in popular usage often carries a connotation of substandard.
Linguists usually approach dialects in descriptively neutral terms, seeing them as regionally
or socially distinct varieties of a language that are mutually intelligible with other varieties.
Although some linguists object to the term dialect for technical reasons, most believe that it
is applicable to all varieties of languages, including the standard. However, language
varieties that coexist within the same environment may have different social values,
particularly if one variety is used as a medium of wider communication. The language
variety that has the higher social value is called a standard dialect (or language), and the
language variety with the lower social value is called a dialect by most who are involved in
the language planning process.
Although language planning frequently attempts to solve conflicts over language, it
can also create conflicts as it affects speakers of regional and social varieties within the
language, immigrants who do not speak the standard or majority language, and indigenous
conquered peoples and colonized peoples who speak languages other than the dominant one.
In struggles for power and dominance between groups, language is often the surface focal
point for deeper conflicts. Some of the more common causes of conflicts occur during
periods of rapid social and demographic change. People who had previously enjoyed
privilege and high status feel threatened by a newly mobilised language minority group.
Fearing the loss of their position, the elite argue for a unifying official language – theirs, of
course. Meanwhile, the language minority people become frustrated in their attempts to
improve their social, political or economic positions, for they suddenly find themselves
blocked by their purported lack of ‘proper’ language skills – a situation caused by the
imposition of new language policy barriers. Language minorities begin to realise that the
language role for participation has been raised too high and surmise that language
requirements may have hidden purpose. They might try to promote their own language as
equal to or superior to the dominant language. In this case, elites seek to mobilize the
dominant group to defend its language – calling it the common language – and claim that
one language is needed as a means of promoting national unity. Elites are using language as
a means of deflecting a class-based challenge to their position. Attacks on language can be
more fundamentally related to attempts to deprive people of access, status and power. In the
extreme, struggles that are supposedly originated over language can lead to resistance,
widespread interethnic conflict, and even civil war. Ethnic cleansing is not far removed from
or unrelated to linguistic cleansing. The outcome of such conflicts may result in the
redrawing of administrative districts within a country to ensure autonomy or in the creation
of independent states with language as a rallying point of identity.
8.2. Language Policies in Education
Language policies, which are the official and institutional practices related to
language and language instructions, are important channels to express public attitudes
towards a language. The distribution of effort allocated to literacy instruction in the first
language is one indication of the social importance accorded to language, and it is sometimes
a flash point during periods of social change. Even with good-quality curriculum and trained
teachers, successful formal second language study may not bring full bilingualism if the
larger social context renders it irrelevant in many important daily contexts. Participants in
formal language study programmes may view efforts to change their language behaviour as
assertions of undue power on the part of institutions or employers and thus resist efforts to
alter their usual style and range of language and literacy behaviour.
Language policies in education are not, however, merely manifestations of attitudes
towards speakers of a particular language or language variety. They also reflect ignored
attitudes towards larger issues such as the role of the government in the provision of human
services, including education; appropriate levels of public expenditures and expressions of
local leadership styles. The political power also plays central roles in educational systems
where local levels of governance, as opposed to national governance through a ministry of
education, bear the main responsibility for planning and supporting education. Most
members of state boards of education are appointed or elected because of political factors,
of which expertise in education is not always the principal or even a major criterion; thus
individuals who do not have backgrounds in the profession of education are placed in
influential decision-making positions. Legislators and members of boards of education
typically draw their legitimacy from the political system, not from any particular
professional expertise in education; thus their assumptions regarding language and language
learning are much more likely to reflect ‘folk linguistic’ theories or common sense
understandings about language, which are erroneous in light of current research. Skills in
identification and resolution of conflict, whether over linguistic matters, cultural differences,
or general educational policy, have not been part of the training of many language educators,
but current educational realities imply that such abilities are central to the effectiveness of
the teachers who work in multilingual, multi-ethnic settings, and these abilities must be
actively developed so that teachers can be prepared for their professional roles.

8.3. Corpus, Status and Language Acquisition Planning

The International Encyclopaedia of Linguistics defines language planning as follows:
A deliberate, systematic, and theory-based attempt to solve the communication
problems of a community by studying the various languages or dialects it uses, and
developing a policy concerning their selection and use; also sometimes called language
engineering or language treatment. Corpus planning deals with norm selection and
codification, as in the writing of grammars and the standardization of spelling; status
planning deals with initial choice of language, including attitudes toward alternative
languages and the political implications of various choices. (Bright, W. International
Encyclopaedia of Linguistics, vol.4. New York, Oxford University Press, pp.310-311).
According to this definition, language planning involves two interrelated
components: corpus planning and status planning. Corpus planning refers to intervention
in the forms of a language. This may be achieved by creating new words or expressions,
modifying old ones, or selecting among alternative forms. Corpus planning aims to develop
the resources of a language so that it becomes an appropriate medium of communication for
modern topics and forms of discourse, equipped with the terminology needed for use in
administration, education, etc. Corpus planning is often related to the standardisation of a
language, involving the preparation of a normative orthography, grammar, and dictionary
for the guidance of writers and speakers in a speech community. Efforts at linguistic purism
and the exclusion of foreign words also belong to corpus planning, as do spelling reform
and the introduction of new writing systems (e.g. that of the Turkish language). For a
previously unwritten language, the first step in corpus planning is the development of a
writing system.
Status planning refers to deliberate efforts to allocate the functions of languages and
literacies within a speech community. It involves status choices, making a particular
language or variety an 'official language', 'national language', etc. Often it will involve
elevating a language or dialect into a prestige variety, which may be at the expense of
competing dialects. Status planning issues include the designation of the language of
instruction in schools and decisions regarding whether and in which languages bilingual
ballots may be used. In these cases, status planning concerns the relationship between
languages rather than changes within them. However, status planning is also concerned with
the position of different varieties of a single language. In this case, status planning becomes
a function of corpus planning. Historically, the creation of a standard language often begins
with the selection of a regional or social variety – usually a written variety – that provides a
base language for grammatical refinement and vocabulary. This initial language confers
privilege upon those whose speech and writing most closely conform to the newly selected
standard. It inevitably elevates one variety of language over other varieties. Here, again,
corpus planning determines status planning, since the process of standardization results in
what is usually called the proper or correct variety or is sometimes called the preferred or
power variety.
A language status decision often produces a situation where some people need to learn
a language that they do not normally speak. In Finland, for instance, the decision to
recognise both Finnish and Swedish as official languages means that Finns must learn
Swedish and Swedes Finnish. Language acquisition planning concerns teaching and
learning of languages whether national languages or second and foreign languages. It
involves efforts to influence the number of users and the distribution of languages and
literacies, achieved by creating opportunities or incentives to learn them. Such efforts may
be based on policies of assimilation or pluralism. Acquisition planning is directly related to
language spread. While acquisition planning is normally the province of national, regional,
or local governments, bodies such as the British Council, Alliance française, Instituto
Cervantes and Goethe-Institut are also very active internationally promoting education in
their respective languages.
8.4. Goals of Language Planning
Whether language policies are implicit or explicit, they involve goals. On the surface
these goals may be seen as either language-related or politically and economically
motivated. Upon closer inspection, however, even goals that appear to be mostly language
related are not without political or economic connection or impact.
Language Goals
Among language-related goals, three broad types of policies can be identified: (1)
language shift policy, (2) language maintenance policy, and (3) language enrichment policy.
Historically, given the many contexts for contact between peoples (nation formation,
migration, trade, wars, intermarriage), language shift policy is a relatively common
occurrence. Language shift can occur as a gradual process, or it can be explicitly planned.
When language diversity is seen as a problem, language shift policy is a goal for language
acquisition planning. Language shift is described as a gradual or sudden move from the use
of one language to another, either by an individual or a group. A considerable degree of
language shift has occurred in the USA although English has never been declared
constitutionally the official language. Despite implicit language shift policies and
intergenerational drifts towards dominant languages, there are numerous reasons why many
individuals who have a minority language status do not shift but remain loyal to their native
languages. Language loyalty refers to the attachment to one’s native language and is based
upon the persistent attempt to preserve ethnic identity in the face of linguistic and cultural
dominance. In the USA, policies to promote language maintenance have not been
considered in the public’s interest. Language enrichment policy is analogous to that of
environmentalists who try to preserve endangered species in the face of imminent species
extinction. It can be accomplished by exploring ways to reverse language shift.
Political Goals
 Among the more explicitly political goals of language planning are those that attempt
to use language as a means to promote nation building. Historically, language planning
played a major role in the development of the modern European nation-state and in the
creation of new nations from former colonies. Often the geographical boundaries of such
states are more political than linguistic. They often correspond more to the former imperial
boundaries than to language, ethnic or religious distribution. Language planning in such
countries is not only important as a means of solving communication problems and linguistic
diversity; it is a means of unifying people whose primary common attribute is that they were
former dominated by a foreign power. Language planning offers them the opportunity to
continue their relationship under a new national authority in the absence of their former
colonial masters.
A number of European states and postcolonial states, however, have used linguistic
unification as a means of promoting national unification. When a single language is used to
help define a nation, it operates on horizontal and vertical axes. Along the horizontal axis
the promotion of a normative, standard variety – among mutually intelligible varieties –
allows the state to expand its influence among speakers and to convince them that they are
one nation. The promotion of a standard is thus an inclusive language policy, for it seeks to
unite speakers of a so-called common language. To do this, a standard must be developed
or selected. The selection of a standard often involves choosing a regional variety that is
associated with centres of power and cultural prestige. Its selection may involve an attempt
to disguise the regional bias under the guise of its transnationalism. Sometimes, speakers of
a closely related oral language (Serbs and Croats during the 19 th century, for example) are
separated by the lack of a common script. Orthography planning provided a means for trying
to bring together groups who perceived themselves as different. Conversely, the Turks in
the early 20th century created a Romanised script to distance their people from the Arabs.
Furthermore, established as the standard, the national language lends itself to defining
a vertical social hierarchy. Along the vertical axis, language proficiency in the standard
functions as a means of enhancing and reinforcing stratification among speakers of the same
language. Thus, the standard may be used as a gatekeeping mechanism to limit upward
mobility to those who have acquired it. Schools play a critical role because they teach the
standard and promote continued academic learning through it. Instruction in the literature
written by great writers of the standard adds status legitimacy to the standard. High-status
varieties are associated with the educated, who, through privilege, have access to schools
and to the national literature canonised therein. In such cases, acquisition planning can be
seen as a divisive force along a vertical axis (between classes), since all groups do not have
equal access to acquiring the standard through an extended elite education
Economic goals
Language planning often pursues economically motivated goals, such as those
pertaining to communication and marketing in international trade. Australia has attempted
to promote foreign language instruction to improve communication with trading partners
who speak Chinese, Japanese and Korean. Among other issues are communication and
language discrimination and language rights in the workplace. Companies may overtly
impose language requirements on workers and applicants. Lack of language and literacy
skills in the dominant language is frequently cited as if it were the cause of poor economic
performance, trade deficits and low productivity and as if it were responsible for the social
costs of crime. There is evidence that the highest arrest rates and conviction rates lie among
certain linguistic minorities. In order to reduce the societal costs imposed on the welfare
system and criminal-justice system, certain linguistic minorities need to receive linguistic
help, i.e. to have greater access to majority-language functions.
Promoting language change or language preservation is not merely a technical
question of determining which language, when and in what variety. Similarly, providing
appropriate language instruction for all students involves more than assessment based upon
the dominant language. How we view issues related to language change, language
preservation and language in education planning is influenced by whether we see language
diversity as a problem or as a resource. When language diversity is seen as problem,
minority languages tend to be suppressed, ignored or, at best, accommodated. When
language diversity is seen as a resource, minority languages are protected and nurtured. As
applied linguists and language teachers, we can play a role in promoting such a view. As
W.Labov recommends, a commitment to promoting languages and equitable education for
language minorities is needed in teaching, given the persistence of social dominance and
inequality.
 Questions for Discussion:
8.1.
8.1.1 Define language planning and policy. Comment on the major goals of the
language planning at a governmental level.
8.1.2
a) Comment on language as a code and as a manifestation of social behaviour.
b) Identify the aim of the language planning and policy from the perspective of the
language as a means of social control.
8.1.3
a) Appreciate the reason for the so-called the common language on behalf of elites.
b) Illustrate the relation between ethnic cleansing and linguistic cleansing in your
country.

8.2.
8.2.1. Determine the role of language policy in education.
8.2.2. Identify the link between language policies and the role of the government in
education.
8.2.3 Evaluate the tendency concerning the fact that most members of state boards of
education are appointed or elected because of political factors, of which expertise in
education is not always the principal or even a major criterion.

8.3
8.3.1 Define the notions of corpus planning, status planning and language acquisition
planning.
8.3.2
a) Determine the relationship between corpus planning and the standardisation of a
language.
b) Identify and comment on the objectives of status planning.
8.3.3. Assess the process of language acquisition planning in Moldova.

8.4.
8.4.1 Identify the major goals of the language planning.
8.4.2. Determine the political or economic impact on language planning.
8.4.3
a) Validate that the suggested goals and objectives are an effective means in solving
communication problems and unifying people.
b) Express your opinion about the political and economic impact on the goals of
language planning in Moldova.