The Routledge Handbook of Language Policy and Planning [1 ed.] 9780429448843

Citation preview

“This fascinating and comprehensive handbook offers an authoritative state-​of-​the-​art overview of language policy and planning, its main features, diverse implementation, and associated complications. The editors have skilfully woven a narrative which interprets the five stages of a language policy cycle from an interdisciplinary perspective, while the distinguished contributors present a refreshing range of material and approaches drawn from a wide variety of international, largely democratic contexts ranging from the global to the local, together with case study chapters which illustrate the complexity of language policy implementation. This is an excellent resource which will repay consistent and regular reading as much for its insights into the policy process as for its evidence-​based interpretations.” Colin H. Williams, Honorary Professor of Welsh at Cardiff University, UK “This Handbook offers a comprehensive, multidimensional, and multidisciplinary treatment of language policy and planning (LPP). The Handbook’s central, innovating contribution is to consider LPP as policy field, and to analyse it using the model of the policy process. In doing so, it situates LPP squarely within the realm of government action, emphasising agency and concrete manifestations of political power.” André Lecours, Full Professor, School of Political Science, University of Ottawa, and Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada “A brave, well-​informed, and rigorous work that proves that, when analysing language policies, the perspective of public policy is (also) essential—​because, in addition to being fair and democratic, language policies must also be effective and efficient.” F. Xavier Vila i Moreno, Full Professor, Secretary General for Language Policy and University of Barcelona, Spain “This comprehensive handbook provides an outstanding overview of important issues surrounding language policy and planning. Taken from a broad geographical base, this remarkable collection of chapters reflects the true interdisciplinary nature of LPP research and provides a timely contribution of state-​of-​the-​art to the existing literature. Given its clear and meaningful structure, this impressive volume is highly reader-​friendly and is a brilliant source for academics, students, practitioners, and anyone else who has an interest in language policy matters.” Tobias Schroedler, Assistant Professor of Multilingualism and Social Inclusion, University of Duisburg-​Essen, Germany “Four accomplished editors from different disciplines have assembled an array of scholars collectively to produce a handbook that is extraordinary in its utility and coherence. Moving beyond description or advocacy, this volume offers both theoretical explanation and practical policy guidance. Tightly organised around the policy-​making cycle, it is ambitious in its scope. It provides tremendous insights about agenda-​setting and implementation, skillfully weaving in a nuanced understanding about the role of ideas, the centrality of the state, as well as the agency of particular actors. This volume is highly useful for scholars, policy-​makers and concerned citizens, supplying guidance in policy formulation, adoption, and implementation. Rather than a succession of isolated chapters, it is a truly integrated analysis of the stages of the policy process that produce language outcomes.” Ericka Albaugh, Associate Professor of Government, Bowdoin College, USA

“The uniqueness of The Routledge Handbook of Language Policy and Planning is that it approaches LPP from an innovative and interdisciplinary angle. It is designed for a much wider readership than conventional LPP scholars, expanding both the research field at large and locus of responsibility for LPP. The editors’ purpose is to include peers from a broad range of disciplines as well as practitioners and even concerned citizens. In this sense it differs rather radically from similar books in the field.” Theo du Plessis, Professor Emeritus in Language Management, Department of South African Sign Language and Deaf Studies, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa “The Handbook offers an impressive overview of the field of Language Policy and Planning, covering the foundations of LPP, the five stages of the Language Policy Cycle, and a rich variety of case studies. Through an interdisciplinary and transcontinental approach attention is given to specific languages, such as minority languages and sign language, languages in public spheres (official multilingualism and public services, media, education), in specific levels of governance (state, local, international) and regions (Africa, Europe). The editors undoubtedly achieve their goal of providing an incredible resource for scholars, decision makers and citizens alike.” Kristin Henrard, Professor International Law, at the Brussels School of Governance, Belgium

THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF LANGUAGE POLICY AND PLANNING

The Routledge Handbook of Language Policy and Planning is a comprehensive and authoritative survey, including original contributions from leading senior scholars and rising stars to provide a basis for future research in language policy and planning in international, national, regional, and local contexts. The Handbook approaches language policy as public policy that can be studied through the policy cycle framework. It offers a systematic and research-​informed view of actual processes and methods of design, implementation, and evaluation. With a substantial introduction, 38 chapters and an extensive bibliography, this Handbook is an indispensable resource for all decision makers, students, and researchers of language policy and planning within linguistics and cognate disciplines such as public policy, economics, political science, sociology, and education. Michele Gazzola is Lecturer in Public Policy and Administration at Ulster University, Belfast, United Kingdom. His research focuses on the analysis of language policy, and on the economic and social aspects of multilingualism. He is editor of Language Problems & Language Planning. François Grin is Full Professor of Economics at the Faculty of Translation and Interpreting at the University of Geneva, Switzerland. He has published widely on interdisciplinary approaches to language policy design and evaluation and has steered major national and international research projects in this area. He is Editor-​in-​Chief of Language Problems & Language Planning. Linda Cardinal is Professor and Associate Vice-​President of Research at the Université de l’Ontario français, Toronto, Canada. She is also Emeritus Professor of Political Studies at the University of Ottawa. In 2017, she was appointed to the Order of Canada for her work on language regimes and policies, Canadian language politics, citizenship debates, and minorities. Kathleen Heugh is Professor of Language Education and Multilingualism at the University of South Australia, and she is a socio-​applied linguist specialising in language policy and planning in Africa, Asia, and Australia. Her research includes system-​wide and multicountry studies of multilingual education and fieldwork in remote and post-​conflict contexts among displaced and marginalised communities. She is Series Editor of Multilingualisms and Diversities in Education, with Christopher Stroud and Piet van Avermaet.

ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOKS IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS

Routledge Handbooks in Applied Linguistics provide comprehensive overviews of the key topics in applied linguistics. All entries for the handbooks are specially commissioned and written by leading scholars in the field. Clear, accessible and carefully edited Routledge Handbooks in Applied Linguistics are the ideal resource for both advanced undergraduates and postgraduate students. THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF LANGUAGE AND THE GLOBAL SOUTH Edited by Sinfree Makoni, Anna Kaiper-​Marquez and Lorato Mokwena THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF DISCOURSE ANALYSIS Second Edition Edited by Michael Handford and James Paul Gee THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF CONTENT AND LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING Edited by Darío Luis Banegas and Sandra Zappa-​Hollman THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF APPLIED LINGUISTICS Volume One: Language Learning and Language Education, Second Edition Edited by Li Wei, Zhu Hua, and James Simpson THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF APPLIED LINGUISTICS Volume Two: Applied Linguistics in Action, Second Edition Edited by Li Wei, Zhu Hua, and James Simpson THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF LANGUAGE POLICY AND PLANNING Edited by Michele Gazzola, François Grin, Linda Cardinal, and Kathleen Heugh For a full list of titles in this series, please visit www.routle​dge.com/​ser​ies/​RHAL.

THE ROUTLEDGE HANDBOOK OF LANGUAGE POLICY AND PLANNING

Edited by Michele Gazzola, François Grin, Linda Cardinal, and Kathleen Heugh

Designed cover image (front): Alois Wey (1894–​1985), “Traumpalast” (Dream Palace), 1977, collection Mina and Josef John, open art museum, St. Gallen, Switzerland First published 2024 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2024 selection and editorial matter, Michele Gazzola, François Grin, Linda Cardinal, and Kathleen Heugh; individual chapters, the contributors The right of Michele Gazzola, François Grin, Linda Cardinal, and Kathleen Heugh to be identified as the authors of the editorial material, and of the authors for their individual chapters, has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-​in-​Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Gazzola, Michele, editor. | Grin, François, editor. | Cardinal, Linda, 1959– editor. | Heugh, Kathleen, editor. Title: The Routledge handbook of language policy and planning / edited by Michele Gazzola, François Grin, Linda Cardinal, and Kathleen Heugh. Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2024. | Series: Routledge handbooks in applied linguistics | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Identifiers: LCCN 2023008375 (print) | LCCN 2023008376 (ebook) | Subjects: LCSH: Language policy. | Language planning. | LCGFT: Essays. Classification: LCC P119.3 .R685 2024 (print) | LCC P119.3 (ebook) | DDC 306.44/9–dc23/eng/20230602 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023008375 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023008376 ISBN: 978-​1-​138-​32819-​8 (hbk) ISBN: 978-​1-​032-​51990-​6 (pbk) ISBN: 978-​0-​429-​44884-​3 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/​9780429448843 Typeset in Times New Roman by Newgen Publishing UK

CONTENTS

List of contributors

xi

1 Language policy and planning: from theory to practice Michele Gazzola, François Grin, Linda Cardinal, and Kathleen Heugh PART I

Foundations of LLP

1

33

2 The historical development of language policy and planning Leigh Oakes

35

3 Language policy and planning: terms of engagement John Edwards

49

4 Language competition models Torsten Templin and Bengt-​Arne Wickström

66

PART II

The language policy cycle

87

STAGE 1

The emergence of language-​related issues 5 Language policy and planning and the role of the state Rémi Léger

vii

87 89

Contents

6 Language, belonging, and citizenship Peter A. Kraus

101

7 Language policy, planning, and mobilisation in post-​colonial civil societies Kathleen Heugh

113

8 Language and territory Virginie Mamadouh

132

9 Languages, the labour market, and trade Gilles Grenier and Weiguo Zhang

145

10 The economics of language policy and planning Bengt-​Arne Wickström and Michele Gazzola 11 More than one language: cognitive perspectives and implications for language policy Mirta Vernice and Antonella Sorace STAGE 2

158

172

The politics of language and agenda-setting

187

12 Power and the politics of language Selma K. Sonntag

189

13 Language policy and discourse in the public sphere: the discursive construction of language and multilingualism as policy objects Jaffer Sheyholislami and Rachelle Vessey

201

14 Inter-​group relations and attitudes: conceptualisation, measurement, and relevance for language policy and planning Guillaume Fürst

213

STAGE 3

Policy formulation and adoption

227

15 Language policy design and programme theory François Grin

229

16 Language policy instruments Linda Cardinal

244

viii

Contents

17 Costs and benefits of language policy: how to measure them François Vaillancourt

258

18 Governance, complexity, and multi-​level language policy and planning Huw Lewis and Elin Royles

272

19 Language rights and protection of linguistic minorities: international legal instruments, their development, and implementation Roberta Medda-​Windischer and Sergiu Constantin STAGE 4

286

Implementation and monitoring

301

20 Principles for language policy implementation Helaina Gaspard

303

21 Language policy implementation from an interactive governance perspective Sebastian Godenhjelm 22 Indicators in language policy and planning Michele Gazzola and Gabriele Iannàccaro STAGE 5

318 331

Evaluation

349

23 Quantitative methods in language policy and planning: statistical measurement and identification of causal patterns Antonio Di Paolo

351

24 Qualitative methods in language policy and planning: ethnographic monitoring Teresa L. McCarty and Kyle Halle-​Erby

367

PART III

Contexts of language policy and planning

381

25 Official multilingualism Nenad Stojanović

383

26 Minority language protection and promotion Brian Ó Curnáin and Conchúr Ó Giollagáin

396

ix

Contents

27 Reclaiming indigenous languages Carlos Sánchez Avendaño

416

28 International and supranational organisations Lisa J. McEntee-​Atalianis

429

29 Multilingual cities Ingrid Gogolin and Sarah McMonagle

444

30 Language education policies: the role of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages Cinzia Colaiuda

457

31 Language policy, literacy, and multilingualism Joseph Lo Bianco

470

32 Language policy in higher education Maria Teresa Zanola

483

33 Public services and translation policy Reine Meylaerts

497

34 Language policy and regulation in the old and new media Tarlach McGonagle and Tom Moring

510

35 Language policy and linguistic landscape Stefaan van der Jeught

523

36 Sign languages and language policy Timothy Reagan

535

37 Planned languages Sabine Fiedler

548

38 Transnational agencies and national language policy and planning in multilingual Africa H. Ekkehard Wolff

562

39 Language policies and integration in the labour market and society in Europe Katalin Buzási

578

Name index Subject index

594 601 x

CONTRIBUTORS

Katalin Buzási is a Researcher at the Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands. Her research focuses on a wide array of issues in the field of development studies. She is particularly interested in the impact of language proficiency on social inequalities in multilingual societies. Linda Cardinal is Professor and Associate Vice-​President of Research at the Université de l’Ontario français, Toronto, Canada. She is also emeritus professor at the University of Ottawa. In 2017, she was appointed to the Order of Canada for her work on language regimes and policies, Canadian language politics, citizenship debates, and minorities. Cinzia Colaiuda received a PhD in international comparative education from the University of Rome II, Tor Vergata, Italy. Her research interests include educational linguistics, early language education, linguistic ethnography, and urban semiotics. Sergiu Constantin is Senior Researcher at the Institute for Minority Rights of Eurac Research, Bozen/​​Bolzano, Italy. He holds a law degree from the University of Bucharest, Romania and a Master’s in European Studies from the University of Graz, Austria. His research on diversity governance focuses on language rights, political participation, and autonomy arrangements. Antonio Di Paolo is Associate Professor of the Department of Econometrics, Statistics and Applied Economics of the University of Barcelona, Spain and member of the AQR-​IREA research group. His research areas are labour economics, education economics, and regional and urban economics. He has published several empirical papers on the economics of language. John Edwards, Senior Research Professor, received his PhD from McGill University, Montreal, Canada. His main research interest is with the establishment, maintenance, and continuity of group identity, with particular reference to language in both its communicative and symbolic aspects. Recent books include Multilingualism: Understanding Linguistic Diversity and Sociolinguistics: A Very Short Introduction. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada.

xi

Contributors

Sabine Fiedler is a Professor of Linguistics at the University of Leipzig, Germany. She holds a PhD in English linguistics (1986) and a second degree (Habilitation) in general linguistics (1999). Her research interests include phraseology, interlinguistics/​​planned languages, lingua franca communication, translation studies, and humour research. Guillaume Fürst received a PhD in psychology from the University of Geneva, Switzerland. He also has extensive training in research methodology and data analysis. He is currently a Lecturer in Methodology and Statistics at the Swiss Distance Learning University and a Research Fellow at the University of Geneva. Helaina Gaspard, PhD, is Director, Governance and Institutions, Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy (IFSD) at the University of Ottawa, Canada. A co-​founder of the IFSD, Helaina works at the intersection of politics and public finance, in research and strategic engagements to deliver evidence and public policy solutions in Canada and abroad. Michele Gazzola is Lecturer in Public Policy and Administration at Ulster University, Belfast, United Kingdom, and co-​director of the Centre for Public Administration at the same university. He is editor of the academic journal Language Problems & Language Planning. Sebastian Godenhjelm is a is a political scientist, university Lecturer at the Swedish School of Social Science, and Fellow of the Teachers’ Academy at the University of Helsinki, Finland. His research interests include public management, participation and processes in regional development, and the relationship between traditional forms of governing versus new forms of governance characterised as temporary network organisations. Ingrid Gogolin, Dr. Dr. h.c. mult., is Professor for international comparative and intercultural education research at Universität Hamburg, Germany. Her research is focused on migration and language diversity in education. She was awarded honorary doctor degrees by the University of Dortmund, Germany (2013) and the National Kapodistrian University of Athens, ​Greece (2017). Gilles Grenier is Professor Emeritus at the Department of Economics of the University of Ottawa, Canada. He is the author of many scientific publications dealing with labour market economics. He is particularly interested in characteristics related to language and immigration. François Grin is Full Professor of Economics at the Faculty of Translation and Interpreting at the University of Geneva, Switzerland. He has published widely on interdisciplinary approaches to language policy design and evaluation and has steered major national and international research projects in this area. He is Editor-​in-​Chief of Language Problems and Language Planning. Kyle Halle-​Erby is a PhD Candidate in the Department of Education at the University of California, Los Angeles, USA. Kathleen Heugh, Professor in Language Education and Multilingualism, Education Futures Unit and Centre for Research in Educational and Social Inclusion at the University of South Australia, is a socio-​applied linguist specialising in language policy and planning in Africa, Asia and Australia. xii

Contributors

Her research includes system-​wide and multicountry studies of multilingual education and fieldwork in remote and post-​conflict contexts among displaced and marginalised communities. Gabriele Iannàccaro (1965–​2022) was Full Professor of Linguistics at the University of Milano-​ Bicocca, Italy. As guest professor he taught in several Universities and he was Full Professor of Italian Linguistics at Stockholms Universitet, Sweden. He was founder and co-​director of the Centre d’Études Linguistiques pour l’Europe, co-​cordinator of various large-​scale sociolinguistic surveys in different European multilingual regions, and appointed by various local governments as a consultant on language policy and language planning issues. He was coordinator of an official survey of Italian Ministry of Education on schools providing language teaching in minority codes. His research interests were sociolinguistics, contact linguistics, dialectology, perceptual linguistics, language planning, historical linguistics, and writing systems theory. Peter A. Kraus is Full Professor of Political Science at the University of Augsburg, Germany. He has published widely and in several languages on cultural diversity and identity politics, political linguistics, ethnicity, migration, nationalism and populism, and the dilemmas of European integration, as well as problems of democratisation and democratic theory. Rémi Léger is Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of the French Cohort Program in Public & International Affairs at Simon Fraser University, Canada. His research examines the recognition and empowerment of linguistic minorities in comparative perspective. Huw Lewis is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of International Politics, Aberystwyth University, Wales, UK. His research interests include language policy and planning, language revitalisation, nationalism, and contemporary Welsh and UK politics. Joseph Lo Bianco is Professor Emeritus in the Graduate School of Education at the University of Melbourne, Australia. He is an applied language policy specialist who has worked on facilitated dialogue for language problem solution in several Southeast Asian countries as well as Australia. Virginie Mamadouh is Associate Professor of Political and Cultural Geography at the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Her work on languages and geopolitics ranges from nationalism, supranationalism, and the linguistic regime of EU institutions to online multilingualism, internationalisation in higher education, and migration and linguistic diversity in European cities. Teresa L. McCarty, Professor, is Distinguished Professor and George F. Kneller Chair in Education and Anthropology, and Faculty in American Indian Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles, USA. Lisa J. McEntee-​Atalianis is Reader in Applied Linguistics at Birkbeck, University of London, United Kingdom. She has published widely on language policy and planning in supranational organisations, from an interdisciplinary perspective. She is reviews editor of the journal Language Problems & Language Planning and serves on the editorial board of Sociolinguistica. Tarlach McGonagle, PhD, is Professor of Media Law and Information Society at Leiden University and an associate professor at the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. He regularly writes

xiii

Contributors

expert studies on freedom of expression, media, and minorities for the Council of Europe, the EU, the OSCE, and the UN. Sarah McMonagle, PhD, is a Research Associate at the Faculty of Education, Universität Hamburg, Germany. Her interests are in language policy and planning for minority languages and their speakers, especially concerning questions of language maintenance and representation. She currently manages interdisciplinary and international research networks focused on multilingualism. Roberta Medda-​Windischer (LLM, PhD), Senior Researcher and Group Leader for Equality and Diversity in Integrated Societies at Eurac Research Institute for Minority Rights, Bolzano/​Bozen, Italy, is an international lawyer specialised in minority protection, human rights, and diversity governance. She has worked for various international organisations, including CoE/​ECtHR, UNHCR, and OSCE/​ODIHR. Reine Meylaerts is Full Professor and currently (2021–​2025) Vice-​Rector of Social Sciences and Humanities at KU Leuven, Belgium. Her research interests concern translation policy for minorities, intercultural mediation, and transfer in multilingual cultures, past and present. She has written or edited about 150 articles, book chapters, and books on these topics. Tom Moring (Dr. Pol. Sc.) is Professor Emeritus (Communication and Journalism) at University of Helsinki, Finland. His career includes leading positions in media; Professor II at the Sámi University of Applied Sciences; expert for OSCE; and consultative position for the CoE. He has published widely on linguistic minorities and the media. Leigh Oakes is Professor of French and Linguistics at Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom. His research focuses on language policy and planning, language and national identity, language attitudes, and second language motivation. He is the author of Normative Language Policy: Ethics, Politics, Principles (with Yael Peled, 2018, Cambridge University Press). Brian Ó Curnáin is Assistant Professor in the School of Celtic Studies, Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies, Ireland. Has published on the dialectology, descriptive linguistics, and minority sociolinguistics of Irish, including The Irish of Iorras Aithneach, County Galway (2007), Analysis of Bilingual Competence (2014), and The Gaelic Crisis (2020). Conchúr Ó Giollagáin is Gaelic Research Professor in the University of the Highlands and Islands, United Kingdom, and Director of the UHI Language Sciences Institute. He has published extensively on the sustainability of minority-​language cultures, especially on the Gaeltacht communities in Ireland and Scotland, most recently The Gaelic Crisis in the Vernacular Community (2020). Timothy Reagan is Professor of Applied Linguistics and Foreign Language Education at the University of Maine, USA. He also holds the position of Research Fellow in the Department of South African Sign Language and Deaf Studies at the University of the Free State in Bloemfontein, South Africa.

xiv

Contributors

Elin Royles is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of International Politics, Aberystwyth University, Wales, UK. Her research interests include UK politics post-​devolution, language policy and planning, and substate nation-​building. Carlos Sánchez Avendaño works as a Professor at the University of Costa Rica. His research and community-​based collaboration projects focuses on languages, oral traditions, and cultural knowledge of indigenous populations of his country, particularly Maleku, Bribri, and Broran, with whom he co-​creates resources for language revitalisation and documentation. Jaffer Sheyholislami is Professor in the School of Linguistics and Language Studies at Carleton University, Canada. He has published extensively on language policy and discourse analysis in journals such as Language Policy and Language and Politics. He is the lead editor of the forthcoming volume The Oxford Handbook of Kurdish Linguistics. Selma K. Sonntag is Professor Emerita of Politics at California Polytechnic State University Humboldt (formerly Humboldt State University), USA. Her research in language and politics has spanned the globe, with a focus on South Asia. She has published over 40 articles and book chapters, authored two books, and co-​edited two volumes. Antonella Sorace is Professor of Developmental Linguistics at the University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom and a Fellow of the British Academy. She is the founding director of the public engagement network Bilingualism Matters. She is internationally known for her contribution to the study of bilingualism over the lifespan. Nenad Stojanović is a Swiss National Science Foundation Professor of Political Science at the University of Geneva, Switzerland. He is the author of Dialogue sur les quota: Penser la représentation dans une démocratie multiculturelle (Presses de Sciences Po 2013) and Multilingual Democracy: Switzerland and Beyond (ECPR Press 2021). Torsten Templin is an interdisciplinary researcher. He holds a PhD in Economics and a Master of Science in Mathematics. His main research interests lie in the field of applied optimal control theory, data science, and language dynamics. He is member of the international research network REAL –​Research Group “Economics, Policy Analysis, and Language”. François Vaillancourt, PhD (Queen’s University 1978), Shastri lecturer (1993), and Fulbright Scholar (Kennesaw 2007), was elected to the Royal Society of Canada in 2009 and awarded a PhD honoris causa (Geneva) in 2021. He is a fellow at the Center for Interuniversity Research and Analysis on Organisation (CIRANO) and Emeritus Professor in Economics at the Université de Montréal, Canada. He has worked as a consultant for language policy bodies, the IMF, and the World Bank. Stefaan van der Jeught works at the Court of Justice of the European Union, Luxembourg and is a part-​time Professor of EU (constitutional) law at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium. He holds a PhD in EU Language Law and publishes regularly about linguistic rights. Mirta Vernice is Associate Professor of General Psychology at the University of Urbino, Italy. In 2011 she co-​authored the Consensus Conference on Specific Learning Disorders in Italy. Since 2012, she has been collaborating with the network Bilingualism Matters. xv

newgenprepdf

Contributors

Rachelle Vessey is Assistant Professor in the School of Linguistics and Language Studies at Carleton University, Canada. Her research on language policy and related fields has been published widely, using English and French data drawn from newspapers, online forums, websites, interviews, documents, and magazines. Bengt-​Arne Wickström (1948) is Swedish. Having worked in the USA, Norway, and Austria, he became professor of public economics at Humboldt-​Universität, Berlin, Germany in 1992 and, after his retirement, is now Guest Professor at Andrássy-​Universität in Budapest, Hungary. He has done research on welfare theory and justice, public-​choice theory, and language economics. H. Ekkehard Wolff, Dr. phil. et habil, is Emeritus Professor and Chair of African linguistics at Leipzig University, Germany and Extraordinary Professor of African Language Studies at UWC, South Africa. He has extensive research and teaching experience in Ethiopia, Niger, Nigeria, and South Africa, and is author and (co-​)editor of more than 30 books covering topics of African linguistics and sociolinguistics. Maria Teresa Zanola is Full Professor of French Linguistics at Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy. She is a highly qualified expert in specialised languages and terminologies from diachronic and comparative perspectives, and an internationally recognised specialist in language policies in Higher Education. She is the President of the European Language Council (CEL/​ ELC). Weiguo Zhang is a Professor of Economics at the Center for Economic Research, Shandong University, China. His research interests include language, labour, education, and development. He is the author of the book Towards an Economic Approach to Language: An Elementary Framework and has published a number of articles in both economic and linguistic journals.

xvi

1 LANGUAGE POLICY AND PLANNING From theory to practice Michele Gazzola, François Grin, Linda Cardinal, and Kathleen Heugh

This handbook approaches language policy and planning (LPP) from an innovative and interdisciplinary angle focussing on language policy as a form of public policy. It is designed for readers that include not only scholars from a wide range of disciplines spanning the social sciences and humanities, but also practitioners and concerned citizens. We begin by locating language policy and planning first and foremost as a responsibility of governments (at the national, regional, local, and potentially international level) and relevant bodies across all areas of public policy. We then discuss how language policy and planning takes form using a five-​stage public policy cycle adapted from public policy studies. The characteristics of the LPP approach discussed in this volume, particularly its theoretical framing and interpretation as well as translation into practice, contribute to its distinctiveness from most other published works in the field. In this opening chapter, we offer a brief guide to the structure of the volume and introduce the authors and their chapters. Our intention in bringing this volume to fruition is to offer readers a coherent and extensive coverage of the most important issues, debates, and tools for analysing and informing language policy choices, development, implementation, and evaluation. We conclude this chapter with a brief overview of the volume and prospects for research in the field of LPP.

1  Surveying the LPP landscape Since the turn of the millennium, the number of scholarly contributions with titles referring to ‘language policy’, ‘language planning’, ‘language management’, or terms pointing to similar endeavours has grown considerably. No integrated bibliography of language policy and planning is available,1 let alone one that would straddle disciplinary boundaries. However, the number of handbooks and reference books is substantial, whether they chiefly originate in the language disciplines2 or explicitly foreground the combination (in varying proportions) of perspectives from sociolinguistics and other disciplines in the social sciences.3 In parallel, several international journals, including Current Issues in Language Planning, European Journal of Language Policy, Glottopol, Language Policy, and Language Problems and Language Planning, are chiefly devoted to LPP, while numerous journals, though not centred on LPP, regularly carry scholarly articles about it. The net could be cast even DOI: 10.4324/9780429448843-1

1

Michele Gazzola, François Grin, Linda Cardinal, and Kathleen Heugh

wider to encompass journals addressing, either occasionally or as their core area of interest, language policy issues with a national or regional focus. This evolution echoes the attention that LPP is receiving in the research community and bears witness to the importance of linguistic diversity in contemporary societies. This could lead us to surmise that, in line with this robust publishing activity, considerable progress is being made in our understanding of language policy issues. These issues are numerous and varied. They encompass the types of interventions on and about language that societies (in the broadest sense, including the state) engage in, the social and political tensions that give rise to such interventions and contribute to shaping them, and the processes through which concerns about language in society at large eventually result in the adoption of language policies. This range of issues also extends to the arbitration of diverging interests, particularly with respect to the goals pursued by such policies, the ways in which these policies operate, and the resources and means of various kinds they require. Further, these issues include how such resources are mobilised by governments, and the actual consequences of those policies for languages communities big or small, the individual users of the languages concerned, as well as these languages themselves. Beyond the reference to language that characterises LPP, these are standard questions that arise whenever one examines matters of public policy, namely, the deliberate interventions that societies undertake to address and handle language-​related issues. Putting it in plainer terms, some of the inescapable questions of public policy, including about language, are how policy choices are made, how they originate and unfold, and then what measures ought to be adopted in order to reach what goals, through which means, and what lessons are learned for further developments. This set of questions is broad enough to embrace the complexity of the social, political, economic, and cultural processes in which action is deployed in LPP. Language policy and planning can pan out very differently, depending on whether it is deployed in democratic or undemocratic contexts. Moreover, even in the former, respect for linguistic minorities may be found wanting (see, for example, the historical case of residential schools in Canada). While fully aware of the existence of non-​democratic manifestations of language policy, our chief concern, in this handbook, is to survey and discuss the processes which inform language policy choices as well as the tools used by actors to formulate, adopt, implement, and evaluate language policies in accordance with democratic principles in which minorities are respected, and institutional arrangements ensure that their voice is heard in the decision-​making process. Typically, societies entrust the formulation, adoption, and implementation of public policies (such as language policy) to their organised arm, that is, a political system structured with a public apparatus at different levels of organisation, from the central state to local authorities (Howlett et al. 2020). As just noted, not all states are democratic, and dictatorships implement policies too, including around language. But because of their intrinsically arbitrary nature, they are only marginally the subject of this book, which is essentially concerned with how democratic societies can best go about addressing the challenges listed above (more on this below). An examination of the main strands of literature in sociolinguistics addressing matters of language policy, exemplified by edited volumes and scholarly journals in applied linguistics (including some with explicit references to ‘language policy’ in their title) reveals, however, that many of the issues at hand tend to be addressed only peripherally. Instead, in much of the contemporary literature, the focus is chiefly placed on how language matters crystallise, reveal, and reflect diverging interests and differential positions of power, possibly resulting in unjust situations, while the policy process, as well as the identification and selection of appropriate measures to achieve certain goals, is currently receiving far less attention. Of course, issues of power and justice are

2

Language policy and planning: from theory to practice

crucial dimensions of LPP, and many of the chapters in this book propose ways to deal with them in order to develop socially just language policies. In other words, the question of justice in LPP should be combined with (or, in an epistemologically converging move, integrated in) the examination of the full policy process but it is not the only element which needs to guide language policy choices. First and foremost, there is the question of ‘what works, how, and under what conditions’. These questions help analyse, understand, and criticise the various types of LPP that societies need. Their discussion and treatment also generate data that can provide guidance and point to best practices in planning their formulation, adoption, and implementation. Formulating such an integrated approach is the chief goal of this volume. In this handbook, LPP is approached as an inherently interdisciplinary enterprise, in the perspective of ‘interdisciplinarity by combination’ (Coenen-​Huther 1989), which emphasises the complementarity and inclusion of different methods and strands of knowledge. Therefore, it is intended to ‘speak to’ readers from a wide range of disciplines in the social sciences and humanities. The main anchoring of LPP as a field of specialisation remains in the language disciplines, more specifically sociolinguistics, often referred to as the sociology of language. It has also been claimed as of interest in applied linguistics. Fundamentally LPP has been interdisciplinary since its origins (see, among others, Rubin & Jernudd 1971; Fishman 1974; Lo Bianco 1987; Cooper 1989; Fishman 1991). However, some of the most exciting developments in LPP have emerged over the past three decades from an increasingly sustained dialogue with other disciplines, including (though not restricted to) anthropology, communication sciences, cultural studies, economics, education, law, political philosophy, political science, psychology, and sociology. Inputs from these disciplines have progressively been incorporated into the specialty, calling for an interdisciplinary perspective when drafting, calibrating, and implementing actual language policy plans (Lo Bianco 1987; Bamgbose 2000; Grin 2003; Heugh 2003; Ricento 2006; 2018). Because language transcends so many, if not all aspects of the life of human societies, LPP necessarily touches upon a great variety of areas and domains. This handbook takes account of this disciplinary diversity and celebrates it (a dozen academic disciplines are represented in this volume). However, it deliberately avoids the pattern of a succession of isolated chapters on different aspects of LPP, or that of a collection of case studies on language policy in different parts of the world (although it draws on illustrative examples from specific countries or regions in many of its chapters). The novelty of this handbook is that it adopts a public policy approach to offer an analytical and critical view of the different stages in a process leading from political debate, whether it is taking place in institutions like parliaments or in informal discussions in the public at large, to the formulation, adoption, implementation, and evaluation of language policies. It also contributes to re-​establishing and strengthening theoretical and methodological links between LPP and public policy studies that have gradually weakened following the ‘critical turn’ in LPP (see Section 3). In this way, this handbook is intended to be a resource for different categories of readership, including practitioners and scholars of language policy, as well as citizens concerned with their linguistic environment. It deliberately emphasises policy and theories of policy, while the politics of language is discussed in so far as it is relevant for the language policy process. This distinction between ‘politics’ and ‘policy’ is analytically crucial, even if both are closely intertwined in reality and these interconnections are addressed in this volume. In addition, approaching language policy as a process offers further advantages, such that it can then be analysed using a range of concepts and methods like those with which well-​established forms of public policy are approached in areas such as the environment, transport, education, or healthcare.

3

Michele Gazzola, François Grin, Linda Cardinal, and Kathleen Heugh

A public policy approach is applicable to a wide range of questions, language being just one of them. It should not be misunderstood as a straitjacket but, quite the contrary, as an approach that encourages cross-​fertilisation between disciplines involved in LPP, while at the same time integrating the micro, ‘meso’, and macro levels, as shown in Part II of this handbook. The rest of this introduction is devoted to a general overview of what this handbook offers. In Section 2, we present the analytical framework provided by public policy studies, recalling its basic principles, and describing the real-​world needs that it is intended to address. In Section 3, we explain in what ways this handbook differs from much the mainstream literature, both in terms of emphasis and epistemological priorities; throughout these two sections, however, we show how these different perspectives may nonetheless be made to work together to develop efficient and fair language policies. Section 4 proposes a brief overview of the chapters that follow, while Section 5 concludes and presents some perspectives for future research.

2  The policy cycle framework: background and basic principles It is necessary to study language policies in their contextual and organisational aspects, within a consistent framework that allows the integration of different epistemological traditions and contributions. Public policy studies provide such a framework. In this perspective, a language policy is defined as a public policy aimed at addressing a social, economic, political, or organisational issue related to the management of linguistic diversity in a territory. However, not all states will provide language policies to the same extent. All states need one or more languages with which they enter in communication with their citizens and operate, thereby implementing a ‘minimalist’ language policy (Weinstock, 2003). The end of such a policy is not to address diversity as much as to affirm and confirm the language or languages of the state, e.g. in administrative uses. However, language policies can also be ‘maximalist’ and aim at proactively modifying a linguistic environment, e.g., revitalising a minority language in several domains. Language policy is both a process and the outcome of that process, typically resulting in decisions, whether explicit or implicit. It is therefore a phenomenon that needs to be analysed in its various stages and articulations. Studying a language policy as a whole means understanding its origins, development, modes of implementation, and its effects. A key feature of the public policy approach is to present public policy as a cycle comprising several steps. This handbook adapts and applies the standard framework of the policy cycle (Knoepfel et al. 2007; Howlett et al. 2020) to the case of language policy. The policy cycle framework presents policies as sequential parts or stages that correspond to applied problem-​solving. These stages are (1) the emergence of a language issue, (2) agenda-​setting, (3) policy formulation and adoption, (4) implementation, and (5) evaluation of what has been done, and the results obtained. The feedback provided by evaluation can lead to the successful conclusion of a policy if the issue has been solved, to a redefinition and improvement of the policy, or to its eventual abandonment. The language policy cycle is visualised as a circular flow chart (see Figure 1.1). The language policy cycle framework can be used both as a positive tool to analyse and interpret reality, and to provide guidance in the making of language policies. Both procedural and substantive aspects of public policy can be studied through the cycle. The language policy cycle framework provides a pragmatic and comprehensive tool straddling different levels of the complex processes at hand, which facilitates a deeply inclusive complementarity among disciplines. Before presenting the policy cycle and its application to LPP, some clarifications are necessary. Since language policy is viewed here as a particular form of public policy, the centre of gravity of this approach is the study of collective choices regarding languages. Those choices are made 4

Language policy and planning: from theory to practice

Figure 1.1 The language policy cycle framework

by the state, by governments, and by parliaments. Max Weber, in his classic definition of the state, says that it has the monopoly of legitimate physical coercion. The state, therefore, has the power and the legitimacy to impose its rules over a population living in any given territory. The state includes institutions which play an important role in the development, implementation, and evaluation of public policies such as the bureaucracy. The courts, the policy, the military, and the systems of allocation or distribution are also components of the state. Governments implement state power and traditions through their decisions. They refer to the institutional processes through which collective (and usually binding) decisions are made and implemented (Heywood 2019). This handbook, therefore, does not cover internal decisions and regulations about languages taken by private actors such as corporations. In this case, the term ‘corporate language policy’ is sometimes used to describe rules and guidelines that are “developed specifically for a business organisation or a unit within an organisation, for example, the language policy of the customer service department of a company” (Sanden 2015: 1100). From a theoretical point of view, however, ‘corporate language policies’ are not very different from other forms of internal regulations, e.g., personnel policies, and they do not have the same scope and breadth as public policies (see Gazzola et al. 2023, ­chapter 3, for a discussion). Considering that the state is a central actor in public policy, of course, does not mean that other individual or institutional private actors do not have important roles and functions. This helps us to make another distinction between the public policy approach to LPP on the one hand, and the treatment of LPP in some areas of sociolinguistics on the other hand (see Bell 2014 for a systematic presentation of the different strands of sociolinguistics). The term ‘language policy’ 5

Michele Gazzola, François Grin, Linda Cardinal, and Kathleen Heugh

is often used in such a broad sense that it encompasses practically everything that individuals, families, as well as private and public organisations decide to do with languages (see Kaplan & Baldauf 1997; Spolsky 2004; Kelly-Holmes 2023; for a discussion and critique, see Gazzola et al. 2023: ­chapter 3). As Fairbrother and Kimura (2020: 10) note, in LPP research “more recent tendencies have made efforts to integrate LPP into practice, but have expanded language policy so much that it can mean everything”. The term has therefore become imprecise, as it does not allow for a clear distinction between ‘policy’ proper and people’s ‘practices’, or between the roles and decisions of different actors in the policy process. In this handbook, this distinction is made explicit. Individuals and families do not make ‘language policies’; they make decisions resulting in language practices, and these practices are a key object of study in several branches of both sociolinguistics and applied linguistics. By contrast, a government’s decisions affecting languages result in language policies, which are precisely the object of LPP. The connection between policy and practice is obviously a very close one, because public policy is also intended to influence, among other things, the behaviour and attitudes of individuals. It is important therefore to study and understand them. Moreover, the habits and beliefs of individuals are formed within a political and institutional framework that influences policy choices. It is however important to recognise habits and beliefs as conceptually distinct from policy. This brings us to a second point. The content of any public policy consists of a deliberate selection of goals and means to achieve them, given certain technical and political constraints. This implies that the relationship between goals and means is a central dimension in the study of language policy, something that was already well understood in the early days of the emergence of LPP as field of study in its own right but has been partly lost following the ‘critical turn’ in both applied linguistics and sociolinguistics—​a point we come back to in Section 3. The study of the relationship between a public issue and the means to address it remains central in the study of public policy, even in situations in which limited information is available. Most social issues, including those that have to do with language, can be approached as social constructs, which implies that their meaning is almost necessarily contested. At some stage, however, the urgencies of reality require action; it is essential that policy-​makers weigh the relative advantages and disadvantages of alternative options and anticipate the consequences of government intervention. This requires a reasoned, rational approach to the weighing of alternative options. The associated definition of rationality, however, needs to be clarified. Rationality should not be understood as an intrinsic feature of any given choice; it resides in the procedure applied when addressing an issue. Contrary to a few very technical problems, societal issues do not have a ‘mechanical’, ‘technocratic’, or unique solution that necessarily emerges from careful thinking, as was often believed in the 1950s or 1960s; however, it is hard to defend the point of view that public decisions can always be made on a completely irrational basis (Howlett et al. 2020). A more balanced definition of rationality is based on the observation that the process leading up to a choice is affected by the quantity and quality of the information available as well as by the analytical competences of decision-​makers. This means that in the real world and most of the time, we operate under what is known as ‘bounded rationality’ (Simon 1986) and our decisions are taken within certain psychological frames (Kahneman & Tversky 2000). The crucial point, however, remains that this process relies on rational reasoning, including some form of assessment of the resources available, the political, institutional, and ideological constraints, and the evaluation of the potential or actual effectiveness of policy instruments. It is worth emphasising this point once again: rationality in public policy is procedural, not teleological; what makes a choice rational is 6

Language policy and planning: from theory to practice

the way in which the decision-​making operates, not the nature of the choice made. It may be seen as a form of consequentialism, because its focus is less on ‘what we do’ than on ‘how we go about deciding what we will do’. Let us now turn to the description of the phases of the policy cycle.4 Its starting point is usually the emergence of an issue to be addressed about which people have different (and possibly diverging or even opposing) views. The issue is then turned into a public problem that requires collective decisions. In this handbook, as shown in Part I, the general context within which issues emerge that are relevant to language policy is characterised by multilingualism and language contact (see Edwards; Templin & Wickström, both this volume).5 Language contact can lead to the expansion of one language and the simultaneous decline of another. This can be seen as a public issue worth addressing, for example through measures to protect and promote a minority language. At the same time, the transnational mobility of people and the international integration of national economies can create new situations of contact between languages that need to be understood, arbitrated, and managed, for example by supporting the linguistic integration of immigrants and the teaching of second languages in the public education system. Understanding the origin of a language policy implies grasping the major underlying issues that have given rise to it, triggering a public debate. Given the ubiquity of languages in human life, these issues present many dimensions. These may be political and ideological (Léger, this volume), historical and identity-​based (Kraus, this volume), economic (Grenier & Zhang; Wickström & Gazzola, both this volume), cultural and social (Heugh, this volume), territorial (Mamadouh, this volume), or psychological-​cognitive (Sorace & Vernice, this volume). In the study of language policies, it is crucial to provide a detailed account of the situation in which language becomes an issue giving rise to a public debate. This debate takes place upstream of the formulation, adoption, implementation, and evaluation of language policies, which in turn provide feedback to the public debate. Although public policies (and language policies) usually have a top-​down component at some point in the process, they can be initiated by citizens and organisations in civil society who contribute to raising awareness of a specific language issue. Put differently, what is referred to as ‘bottom-​up’ language policy (Heugh, this volume) corresponds to public policies initiated by citizens and organisations in civil society, such as interest groups, journalists, commentators and other public intellectuals, extra-​parliamentary political groups, citizens’ associations, and the private media. The study of this preliminary phase of language policies (phase 1 of the policy cycle) benefits from the contribution of several academic disciplines, including sociolinguistics, history, philosophy, political science, economics, psychology, geography, and law. Not every issue that is publicly debated and discussed, however, becomes an object of public policy. The life of a public policy proper begins when key actors in the statal sphere give it consideration, i.e., when an issue is accepted among those deserving attention and inclusion in the government’s agenda. This phase is called ‘agenda-​setting’ in the strict sense (phase 2 of the policy cycle). It is a mechanism for filtering the various requests for action aimed at the government. Public authorities then get involved in the debate and outline potential solutions to the language question raised. This is perhaps the most critical stage in the policy cycle. How public authorities recognise, frame, define, interpret, and articulate an issue has an impact on all the subsequent stages, e.g., on the formulation of solutions and how they are implemented. It is therefore an eminently political phase in which different ideologies, state traditions, and values confront each other (Sonntag, this volume), and prevailing attitudes towards linguistic diversity become manifest (Fürst, this volume). Different and often conflicting discourses are elaborated and disseminated through the media (Sheyholislami & Vessey, this volume). The study of this phase requires a 7

Michele Gazzola, François Grin, Linda Cardinal, and Kathleen Heugh

clear understanding of the goals set by governments, how they are defined or framed in a certain way and placed on the agenda for policy decisions. In this process, whose values and interests are manifested, overtly and covertly? What perspective on citizenship do the choices made by governments reflect and support? To what extent, and how, can specific contexts, events, and organisations influence the process of language policy formulation? What are the different normative, institutional, and administrative traditions that influence the policy positions underpinning language policy? What concepts and notions have been used, or possibly created, in this debate? At this stage, the study of political ideologies, representations, or ideas about language and discourse provide indispensable contributions to the understanding of the agenda-​setting phase of a language policy. The next stage of the policy cycle (3) is the formulation of possible plans for addressing the language issue that has entered the government’s agenda, and the subsequent selection and adoption of the preferred option (including making no changes, i.e., maintaining the status quo). In contrast to phases 1 and 2 of the cycle, which bring together a wide variety of actors, the formulation and decision-​making phase involves a smaller group of actors, typically advisors, experts, senior civil servants, and, of course, public decision-​makers. The formulation of language policy options at this point can follow different modes, ranging from the deliberate and conscious design of a public policy intervention (‘policy design’ in the narrow sense) to the opposite end of the spectrum, where options are the result of improvised ideas or electoral opportunism (Howlett 2019). In this handbook, we focus on policy design in the narrow sense. This phase is the very core of language policy. First, it involves defining and setting the objectives of language policy (that is, its goals) and clarifying the resources and means available (the inputs). It also involves explaining how and why the resources invested should make it possible to achieve the goals set. This requires the development of theoretical models laying out causal relationships between inputs and outcomes (Grin, this volume). The planning of a language policy thus presupposes the definition of a ‘programme theory’ (or theory of change) that explains how the means employed and the resources invested, given certain constraints, enable the goals of the language policy to be achieved, i.e., how they address the issue defined in the agenda-​setting phase. Furthermore, the policy design phase requires identifying, on the one hand, the material and symbolic costs and benefits of the various language policy options, and, on the other hand, the groups to whom the benefits and costs accrue (Vaillancourt, this volume). The policy design phase also requires, just as importantly, the identification of the concrete instruments of language policy to be used in the implementation of LPP, be they regulatory, monetary, organisational, or informational (Cardinal, this volume). The study of phase 3 of the policy cycle cannot dispense with an understanding of the regulatory frameworks and main legal principles underlying language planning (Medda-​Windischer & Constantin, this volume), because they obviously influence the legal instruments adopted. This phase in the policy cycle ends with the choice of an option. The study of this phase requires the contribution of several disciplines in the social sciences and humanities in order to formulate relevant alternatives and identify appropriate policy instruments to achieve the policy objectives, under a certain set of constraints. The fourth phase of the policy cycle is its implementation, that is, the execution of the language policy. It is the set of processes that, after planning, aim to achieve the objectives of the language policy. This phase concerns the practical conditions of implementation and operation. It entails particular attention to issues of organisation and implementation (Gaspard, this volume). This encompasses the concrete ways in which resources (inputs) are transformed into direct products of public action (outputs)—​e.g., teacher training or the organisation of teaching—​and

8

Language policy and planning: from theory to practice

how these, in turn, translate into results (outcomes), that is, the actual effects of the language policy on the target population—​e.g., children learning a minority language at school. There is a need to identify these components of effective language policies in a rigorous and consistent manner, which requires an appropriate set of measurement and monitoring tools, typically in the form of indicators (Gazzola & Iannàccaro, this volume). It is mistaken to take implementation for granted and to view it as a mechanical phase in which those on the ground (such as civil servants, local government officers, teachers, and doctors) simply carry out instructions from above. The relationships between structure and agency in LPP are complex (Johnson 2018; Gazzola et al. 2023: ­chapter 2). The persons who implement the language policy benefit from a certain discretion in its concrete implementation, and they may appropriate official language policies in different ways. In some cases, there may be resistance and, consequently, a language policy may not be fully implemented (see e.g. Akinnaso 1991; Bamgbose 2000; Heugh 2003, 2013; Gaspard 2019). For this reason, it is essential to study the administrative principles and governance mechanisms that guide the implementation of the various language policy instruments (Godenhjelm, this volume). The fifth and final step in the language policy cycle is retrospective (also known as ‘ex-​post evaluation’; prospective evaluation, also known as ‘ex-​ante’, is part of phase 3). Evaluation refers to the processes through which we determine whether the policy has achieved its goals, and what the effects of language policy have been at various levels. For example, this could mean the extent to which macro-​level policy results in changing the practices and attitudes of various target groups and the corresponding changes relating to the vitality, use, and visibility of a language in society at large. Except if it is completely ignored, evaluation, as already noted above, can provide feedback to the public debate and it may result in the reconceptualisation of problems, the revision of the policy measures, the continuation of an essentially unchanged policy, or, on the contrary, its abandonment. Using the data collected during monitoring as well as, possibly, other external sources, evaluation provides a judgement on the policy based on certain criteria, and can help identify best practices in a particular context (see Cardinal & Williams 2020). The most important criteria are the effectiveness, efficiency, and fairness of the measures taken and the process followed, as well as their relevance for addressing the original problem. Evaluation can combine different approaches and techniques, including quantitative methods (Di Paolo, this volume) and qualitative ones (McCarty & Kyle Halle-​Erby, this volume). The five phases of the (language) policy cycle are summarised in Figure 1.1. The chapters in Part II of this handbook are organised around each phase, while the chapters in Part III present the different areas and contexts of language policy in which the language policy cycle framework can be applied. The policy cycle framework is presented in different ways in the literature on public policy studies. Figure 1.1 adopts and adapts to LPP the five-​phase presentation in Knoepfel et al. (2007) because it is particularly suitable for the purposes of this handbook. The reader, however, should be aware that the literature in public policy studies also proposes other variants of the cycle (see, among others, Howlett et al. 2020; Araral et al. 2013). Some authors divide phase 3 (formulation and adoption) into two distinct phases, i.e., policy formulation and decision-​making. However, we prefer to keep them together because, as Jann and Wegrich note, “a clear-​cut separation between formulation and decision-​making is very often impossible” (Jann & Wegrich 2007: 48). Moreover, in various representations of the policy cycle, phase 1 is merged with phase 2. This, however, requires introducing a difference between a public (or systemic) agenda, that is, the set of issues debated in the public sphere in general, and an institutional (or formal) agenda, which instead

9

Michele Gazzola, François Grin, Linda Cardinal, and Kathleen Heugh

is the policy agenda of the government in the narrow sense (Jann & Wegrich 2007). In order to relabel these stages 1 and 2 as one, the term ‘policy initiation’ is sometimes used (Heywood 2019). The use of the policy cycle framework for the study of language policies has advantages and limitations. A first advantage is epistemological. It provides a systematic way to organise and generate knowledge about the different aspects of language policy; within this framework, the disciplines involved in LPP and different research methods can complement and fertilise each other. It also allows research in LPP to restore the links with public policy studies and its massive literature. These are links that have faded during various phases of the ‘critical turn’ first noted in linguistics by the late 1970s (see for example, Fowler & Kress 2018), and frequently associated with the influence of ‘critical applied linguistics’ (Pennycook 2001) and ‘critical discourse analysis’ in sociolinguistics (Fairclough 2013). The intention in this volume is therefore to recover the practical and pragmatic vocation that was present at the origins of LPP in the sociology of language and sociolinguistics back in the 1960s and 1970s (Oakes, this volume), as well as to contribute to the advancement of the discipline. This enables us to move beyond the micro-​level study of idiosyncratic practices in specific policy cases, and to embrace a broader and more inclusive analytical framework capable of articulating the macro, the ‘meso’, and the micro dimensions of LPP. The second advantage is of a theoretical nature. The use of the policy cycle framework offers a systematic view of the different stages of the process, leading from public political debate to the formulation, implementation, and evaluation of language policy. The policy cycle framework, therefore, “facilitates an understanding of a multidimensional process by disaggregating the complexity of the process into any number of stages and sub-​stages, each of which can be investigated alone or in terms of its relationship to any or all the other stages of the cycle” (Howlett et al. 2020: 12). It is also versatile, since it can be used to organise knowledge about a particular stage of the cycle, or to investigate the relationships between different stages. Furthermore, it can be applied at different levels of policy-​making, from the local to the international level. Both features facilitate comparative analysis. A third advantage is that it makes for a richer, more comprehensive, and more articulate representation of language policy processes. Although the central actor is the government, the framework includes a wide range of different private and institutional actors that are stakeholders in the various stages of a language policy. No restrictions whatsoever are placed on the range of concerns, or the identity of the stakeholders considered. Hence, the study of the language policy cycle can provide guidance to decision-​makers in actual policy exercises by clarifying the stages and challenges of LPP. In this perspective, the framework can be used as a practical guide, particularly in the design, implementation, and evaluation phases of language policies. The language policy cycle also has its limitations; in its application to LPP, such limitations are the same as those already highlighted in the more general policy studies literature (see Jann & Wegrich 2007 for a review). First, while it presents an ideal description of the policy process, public decision-​makers in the real world do not necessarily address and solve public issues in a systematic and linear manner, and they may skip or mix some steps. For instance, some decisions are never implemented, and many policies are never evaluated. In some cases, choices may be made before the debate or agenda-​setting stage. Second, the policy cycle is not a causal model, in the sense of explaining why a policy should move smoothly from one stage to another. The policy cycle, therefore, should not be used rigidly. Indeed, it is often presented in the literature as a ‘framework’ or ‘heuristic tool’ for organising knowledge and structuring the study of public policy. This is the way in which it is applied in this volume.

10

Language policy and planning: from theory to practice

In summing up the main points made in this section and introducing the next one, it is useful to highlight four aspects that characterise this handbook. • First, it differs from much of the recent literature on LPP found in both applied linguistics and sociolinguistics, because the latter only peripherally addresses policy proper, emphasising ideologies and discourse on policy instead. The emphasis on ideologies and discourse implies a focus on phases (1) and (2), and partly phase (4). It may reflect analytical priorities in applied linguistics and sociolinguistics approaches; but while such approaches are indisputably essential to the study of phases (1) and (2) of the policy cycle and provide relevant contributions to the understanding of actual practices in policy implementation (phase 4), they are not sufficient to address the issues raised in policy formulation (phase 3), policy implementation (phase 4), and evaluation (phase 5). Therefore, they cannot fully address the needs of policy-​makers, who want to know what works, for what reasons, under what conditions, at what cost, with what effects, and for whom, and who also need stable, consistent criteria for comparing alternative language policy options and choosing among them. • Second, such research is comparative in nature. Developing a broad, integrated view of the LPP process encompassing phases 1 through 5 allows for the simultaneous development of applied, comparative and empirical research (whether qualitative or quantitative) as well as a fundamental theoretical perspective. Any of the phenomena involved in the study of LPP may be approached from these two perspectives. The policy cycle framework presented here offers a way to combine and mutually position various research inputs in a structured fashion. • Third, the policy analysis template makes for a highly inclusive research programme. It underscores the need for the inputs from many disciplines—​any discipline, in fact, that has something to say about language issues and responses through policy. Different disciplines, in turn, are also better placed to relay the different types of concerns about language found in different social, political, economic, linguistic, ethnic, and cultural constituencies. • Finally, a policy analysis framework proposes a convenient typology for the identification and formulation of future research projects inspired by the questions addressed in this handbook. As pointed out in Section 1, the type of approach that provides the structuring rationale for this book is designed with democratic states in mind. By ‘democratic states’, we mean those of which it can reasonably be said that, despite the presence of non-​converging interests between different groups in society, three conditions are met (note, however, this does not mean that these conditions are necessarily met to the same extent in all democracies, as different measures of the degree of democracy have shown, e.g., the democracy index of Economist Intelligence Unit). The first one is the existence of democratic institutions allowing different sets of opinions, preferences, and values to be voiced and heard. The second is a general respect (by the state apparatus, political parties, pressure groups, and citizens at large) for the rule of law, as opposed to the arbitrariness that characterises, to varying degrees, oligarchic regimes and dictatorships. The third condition is a measure of social consensus to the effect that what ultimately justifies public policies is the search for the common good, which itself presupposes a bone fide effort to establish what the common good is. The policy cycle framework, therefore, is not intended to describe deliberate language planning aimed at eradicating a regional or minority language or erasing another language and culture. Of course, non-​democratic planning may include a phase in which some planning issues become part of the authorities’ agenda; it is then followed by the design, implementation, and possibly the evaluation of the measures adopted. In other words, some technical components of the

11

Michele Gazzola, François Grin, Linda Cardinal, and Kathleen Heugh

policy cycle framework could be used for this purpose, just as any form of knowledge can be used for worthy as well as criminal goals. But this is precisely why we insist on thinking in terms of the full policy cycle, including the initial stage of public and open debate and the feedback of evaluation to such a debate. The public policy cycle, in this perspective, can be seen as a tool for the promotion of democracy, social justice (including human rights) and social progress. As Schneider notes, “from a normative perspective, public policy in a democracy is charged with the task of creating democratic institutions; encouraging and promoting an active, engaged, and informed citizenry; promoting justice as fairness for all people; and solving collective problems in ways that are efficient and effective” (2013: 222). The systematic study of the various stages of public policy, therefore, helps to understand whether these objectives have been achieved, i.e. whether the public debate preceding a policy is actually open; whether the arenas for discourse are free; whether the social construction of the objectives of a public policy actually reflects the orientation and identity of the citizens; whether the implementation of public policy meets certain standards of transparency and fairness; whether resources have been used in an effective way, and the government is transparent and accountable for its actions (see Ingram & Schneider 2006).

3  On politics, policy, and practice: more ways in which this handbook is different This handbook aims to fill a gap and wants to be a resource for scholars, decision-​makers, and citizens at large. It provides analytical concepts, empirical methods, and meaningful examples that can assist readers in understanding language policy processes, in participating in language policy debates in a better-​informed way, as well as in designing, implementing, and evaluating language policy plans of various types. It means to do so by foregrounding some questions that are central to any policy; these have been discussed in the preceding sections. Although such questions remain just as urgent today as they ever were, they are often overlooked in some orientations of sociolinguistics and applied linguistics research, which have turned their gaze in other directions and taken what some authors have called a ‘critical turn’. As noted by Oakes (this volume), ‘critical’ approaches to LPP have helped to deepen the perspectives opened by earlier approaches. However, it is now becoming essential to move the field forward, because the emphasis on the critical legacy has entailed a degree of isolation from recent developments in various strands of the social sciences, in particular—​but not only—​in policy studies, and, as noted above, a gradual separation from the practical and theoretical concerns of practitioners involved in actual LPP. The application of critical approaches to LPP has already been criticised because of their arguably insufficient attention to agency (see e.g. Johnson 2018 for a review). However, additional reasons that may explain this gap between mainstream research and actual LPP have to do with the ways in which the term ‘critical’ has been used and interpreted (Tollefson 2006). First, the adjective may refer to the need to include proper consideration of the power issues involved in language policies. This necessity is undisputed, and it is a natural part of the questions addressed when applying the policy cycle. Nevertheless, the ‘critical’ stance often appears to be accompanied by the assumption that other strands of LPP development and scholarship do not sufficiently take these power issues into account, and that a focus on those issues should supersede all the other questions that turn up in the adoption, implementation, and evaluation of public policies. Heller, for example, considers “the central question to be how LPP … has been understood at various junctures to be connected to both political and economic interests, or why language has 12

Language policy and planning: from theory to practice

been understood as a significant, or at least useful, terrain for working out political and economic concerns” (Heller 2018: 36). Second, a critical perspective may refer to a robust awareness of the possible limitations (e.g., logical, conceptual, theoretical, and empirical) of researchers’ tools and methods, first and foremost their own. This is a normal precaution in all sound scientific research. However, the sense in which the term ‘critical’ has often been used since the so-​called ‘critical turn’ (and hence the meaning of adopting a ‘critical’ stance) is a different one. It frequently takes the form of an a priori suspicion of the intentions or consequences of official language policies, whether as actual implementation or as discourse enshrined in policy documents. A recurring trope found in certain strands of critical approaches in LPP is the questioning (or even the dismissal) of public policy measures in general, on the grounds that these measures are primarily a tool for the promotion of sectoral interests or the reproduction of social inequality. For example, Tollefson (1991: 136) states that “Language 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”. In a similar vein, Martin-​Jones and da Costa Cabral note that “the term critical signals several interconnected goals for research [on LPP]: first, that of shedding light on the way in which language practices, discourses, and ideologies contribute to the reproduction of power asymmetries” (2018: 86, italics in the original). Such diagnoses may of course result from very cogent arguments, although one might query the implicit reduction of the political process to interest-​based politics that pit (often unduly essentialised) groups against each other. However, independently of whether the case made is compelling or not, a direct consequence of such an emphasis is that the discussion drifts towards ideological and political claims instead of the examination of actual policies (Cardinal & Sonntag 2015; Grin 2022a). These ideological and political dimensions, however (and as shown in Section 2) are only part of what LPP is about, and they are heavily focussed on just one the phases of LPP, namely agenda-​setting (e.g. Duchêne & Heller 2007; Muth & Del Percio 2018). Addressing the questions that actors face when they debate, advocate, campaign for, design, adopt, implement, appropriate, evaluate, or reform language policies certainly requires analyses that embrace the political questions favoured by some strands of current research; but this does not, for that matter, foreclose the rigorous, systematic, and comparative examination, assessment, and evaluation of public policy plans and measures, whether when they are first designed or after they have been implemented. Such analyses are useful and even indispensable for civil servants, elected officials, professionals in various sectors, scholars, the media, and, ultimately, citizens at large, in order to engage in meaningful democratic debate. Alongside a focus on agenda-​setting, significant tracts of current research devote much attention to discourses about language policies as distinct from language policies themselves (for an overview, see Reisigl 2013). As Johnson aptly notes, “a lot of language policy analysis is, essentially, discourse analysis, since it involves looking at various texts (both spoken and written) and analyzing policy discourses that are instantiated within or engendered by the policy texts” (2013: 152). This, however, creates a risk of neglecting other forms of knowledge that actors also need. Providing such knowledge requires us to engage in the demanding task of identifying and measuring complex real-​world processes, striving for a clear vision of the relationships between them, and using various types of hard data, ranging from the qualitative to the quantitative, to back up our accounts of such processes (see several chapters in Hult & Johnson 2015). This is also a necessary condition for assessing the extent to which the claims made can be generalised. 13

Michele Gazzola, François Grin, Linda Cardinal, and Kathleen Heugh

The challenge of identifying and measuring these complex processes is one that requires a suitable combination of concepts and methods. Some of these concepts and methods originate in the strand of research often called ‘ethnographic’ (see McCarty & Halle-​Erby, this volume). This term should not be primarily taken in the classical dictionary sense of ‘the study and systematic recording of human cultures’. Rather, it refers to a detailed observation of practices (for example regarding the ways in which actors use various languages in their daily life), with a strong emphasis on shedding light on the meaning that actors themselves assign to their language practices. Ethnographic approaches are numerous, but they frequently focus on conversation analytical work or ethnomethodology (Seedhouse 2013) in the study of multilingual interaction in various settings such as the workplace (Makaki et al. 2013) or universities (Nussbaum et al. 2013). The knowledge generated by ethnographic approaches is relevant to the policy cycle because of their high degree of granularity, which helps to identify and interpret language-​related processes in greater depth (Hornberger & Johnson 2007; Johnson 2013). The challenge then remains how to generalise from what are often qualitative case studies in specific settings, in order to design policies that can be expected to meet criteria of efficiency and fairness at the level of a jurisdiction—​ which is the level at which language policies are adopted and implemented. Of course, this immediately confronts us with the full range of the classical challenges of the social sciences: How do we know that X influences Y ? On what grounds can we reasonably expect that adopting a particular measure will deliver certain results, not just in a specific case, but more generally? What are the conditions needed for this connection to be observed? How can causes, effects, and surrounding conditions be properly identified and reliably measured? Why or to what extent is a particular language policy better, or preferable, to its alternative? When such questions are applied to something as complex, multifaceted, and ubiquitous as language, they are particularly daunting. But apart from being inescapable, the challenge is well worth confronting. Engaging with these questions is what makes it possible, for example, to show that moving from a unilingual to a bilingual education system in order to serve the needs of a linguistic minority, far from involving an unsustainable cost, requires the education system to increase its expenditure by only about 3.5%, or less (Grin 2005). Results of this kind illustrate the fact that far from being “about how things ‘ought to be’ ” and hence in opposition to “what ‘is’ ” (Canagarajah 2006: 153), the public policy approach to LPP is rooted in reality, and often crucial to the public debate about language policy. At this point, it is also useful to pre-​empt some widely shared misconceptions surrounding the approach presented in this handbook. First, nothing in our public policy approach implies that the only actor considered in LPP should be the government—​quite the contrary, as several contributions in this book amply demonstrate. It is important to steer clear of the simplistic opposition between ‘top-​down’ and ‘bottom-​up’ policy development. Language policy, as with all public policy, is the responsibility of government, but it also depends on the initiative, involvement, participation, and feedback of individual and collective agents in civil society. Many of the chapters in this handbook examine the interplay between different groups of actors, including state and non-​state actors. Second, as a direct consequence of the preceding point, the tools and methods presented in the following chapters allow for a wide range of theoretical and empirical inputs to be included in our thinking about policy. A dynamic understanding of the policy cycle makes it clear that it would be preposterous to associate this tool with a technocratic, a-​political perspective. Using these tools and methods does not discount the possibility or reality of conflict and injustice, nor does it imply that issues of power are ignored. Quite the contrary, they are designed to take such phenomena in

14

Language policy and planning: from theory to practice

stride, precisely through the systematic identification and measurement of the material and symbolic elements that constitute language policies. This does not only aim at efficiency or serve to understand what policies work better than others. It is also essential in the perspective of social justice, because these tools and methods serve to establish who gains, who loses, and how much; they also help to assess whether such outcomes, as they result from the adoption and implementation of various policies, are ethically acceptable. Being able to identify and measure such dimensions of language policies is an absolute prerequisite for well-​informed democratic debate, whether our concerns are primarily positive, or normative, or both. Third, the literature in public policy studies shows that the policy cycle framework is not wedded to any ideology or political orientation (Howlett et al. 2020). Applying this framework and using some criteria for evaluation simply presupposes respect for the principles that normally animate a liberal democracy, as opposed to dictatorships of any stripe. Not a single additional assumption is made regarding the desirable social and political climate, or the nature of policy outcomes. Relatedly, it is essential to recall that liberal democracy and ‘neoliberalism’ are two different things, even though some contributions in the LPP literature appear to confuse them; the analytical tools presented here are equally relevant to democracies where left-​of-​centre or right-​of-​ centre opinions prevail. Some politically induced differences may of course arise between politically different jurisdictions in the practical application of various tools to the formulation, adoption, implementation, or evaluation of policies. Nevertheless, the tools themselves remain the same. As to the values that underpin the use of the analytical instruments presented in this volume, they are aligned with the standard interpretation of human rights as understood in major international instruments and their application to language (Pupier & Woehrling 1989; Medda-​Windischer & Constantin, this volume) and with various contributions in the volumes on linguistic human rights edited by Skutnabb-​Kangas and Phillipson (2016, 2023). The foregoing probably explains why some of the recurring themes discussed in both ‘critical’ applied linguistics and sociolinguistics in matters relating to LPP are not addressed in this handbook. The reader may notice the absence of entries about ‘superdiversity’, ‘languaging’, or ‘commodification’, for example. This absence is deliberate, and the reasons for it have been addressed elsewhere (for more detailed discussions, see Edwards 2023; Grin 2018, 2021, 2022b; Jaspers 2018; May 2022; McSwan 2017; Pavlenko 2019; Spolsky 2022). The mission of this handbook is to offer citizens, elected officials, civil servants, media people, and scholars several instruments that are useful in the theory and practice of LPP. These instruments encompass concepts, methods, analyses, and data that can help them understand and take part, in their various capacities, in the different stages of the policy cycle. Becoming aware and voicing one’s concerns about language issues, taking part in political debates in an informed way, formulating and weighing policy responses, implementing them in a structured fashion, and evaluating them properly calls for an eminently pragmatic and theoretically sound perspective. Such a perspective should take at its starting point the actual language issues that societies are confronted with, and propose tools designed to deal with these issues.

4  The contents of this handbook In this section, we provide an overview of what the reader may expect in each chapter in the three parts of this volume. A key feature of this handbook is that all chapters by and large follow the same template. Although there is some—​unavoidable—​variation among chapters, the general template is the following: each chapter includes an introduction, then a section about key issues, concepts, and definitions, followed by a section presenting the development of the literature on the

15

Michele Gazzola, François Grin, Linda Cardinal, and Kathleen Heugh

topic examined. This is followed by a section on theory and methods, which are then discussed in selected applications. The chapters contain a concluding section about challenges, debates, and perspectives, and finally suggestions for further readings. This template allows readers to quickly find the information they seek.

Part I –​Foundations of language policy and planning (LPP) This part includes three chapters. We begin with an introduction to the history and the main conceptual, analytical, and theoretical tools used in LPP. These are ones that the editors and authors of the handbook regard as essential for researchers, policy-​makers, and public officials. A purpose of this section is to familiarise the reader with key terminology and tools frequently used in public-​sector LPP contexts, and the linguistic environments in which LPP operates. It is important for policy-​makers and those interested in LPP to be able to recognise the dynamics of language change in any environment in which LPP occurs. Language change may occur in relation to status, practices, or use; it may be affected by any one of multiple socio-​economic, political, or educational circumstances. Understanding these dynamics is necessary in the process of articulating appropriate policy and its implementation. In Chapter 2, The historical development of language policy and planning, Leigh Oakes provides an overview of the historical development of LPP as a field of study. The author traces theoretical changes in the field, including recent critical and ethnographic approaches. Importantly, Oakes argues that the pragmatic and interdisciplinary origins of the field are ones that have greatest practical relevance for policy-​makers. John Edwards, in Chapter 3, Language policy and planning: terms of engagement, provides a detailed discussion of the foundations of LPP with an explanation of many of the key concepts and terminology used in the volume. These include concepts that relate to the intersection between language policy and power, and the linguistic (language) ecology within which LPP is undertaken. Edwards draws attention to terms that concern language change, contact, and variation, including code-​switching. He also emphasises three sub-​fields of language planning, namely acquisition planning, corpus planning, and status planning. Chapter 4, Language competition models, by Torsten Templin and Bengt-​Arne Wickström, offers a theoretical explanation of the dynamics of change relating to language status, skills, and practices. The authors detail two types of formal models that are used to explain the evolution of the use and vitality of minority languages, and therefore the variables that are relevant for policies aimed at promoting their survival and revitalisation. The first (macro) type includes models in which the transmission of languages from one generation to the next occurs mainly in the family. The second (micro) type of model explains language change as the result of imitation during random encounters of single individuals. The authors introduce a third type of model, which is a hybrid of the two.

Part II –​The language policy cycle The pragmatic and interdisciplinary approach taken in this handbook enables us to provide a multi-​ disciplinary set of chapters that are relevant and useful for researchers and policy-​makers at each stage of the policy cycle. Our intention is to provide a methodological approach together with conceptual and analytical tools, and relevant high-​quality expertise that help to analyse, discuss, and understand LPP processes and outcomes across the five stages of the language policy cycle, and to 16

Language policy and planning: from theory to practice

guide policy-​makers in the making of language policy. The 20 chapters in Part II cover the central aspects of the five stages of the language policy cycle.

Stage 1 –​The emergence of language-​related issues The history and analysis of LPP indicates that it is crucial to offer a comprehensive account of political, social, and economic contexts, in order to understand how a language question becomes an issue and is experienced and recognised as one, and what motivations inspire relevant actors (for example, nationalism, human capital creation, identity, inequality, migration) to justify a language policy intervention. How the language question or issue enters the public sphere and how it becomes both a public and social debate occurs ahead of actual language policy formulation, adoption, implementation, and evaluation. While public policies (and language policies) follow top-​down processes, they can be initiated and influenced by private actors who contribute to raise awareness about a specific language question. What is called ‘bottom-​up’ language policy usually corresponds to public policies inspired by private actors. In most instances, we expect to find a mix of public-​sector language policy that is influenced to some degree by civil society or private sector agents. Seven chapters (Chapters 5–​11) refer to Stage 1 of the policy cycle, and they offer a series of circumstances and contexts in which language-​related issues surface for attention in the public sphere for LPP intervention. In Chapter 5, Language policy and planning and the role of the state, Rémi Léger discusses how two dominant theoretical positions, liberal and Marxist, influence state power and policy. The author provides an overview of the main issues and approaches taken to address issues from these positions, paying particular attention to normative frameworks that can guide actors involved in public (state) policy development. Chapter 6, Language, belonging, and citizenship, by Peter A. Kraus, brings attention to the relationship between linguistic identity and political power within a framework intended to support nationalism and a nation-​state identity within civil society. Challenges to the historical link between language and the nation-​state have increased during the twenty-​first century owing to widespread migration and the concomitant increase in diversity. Kraus points out that state authorities need to adjust nation-​state linked policies to the expansion of societal multilingualism and the potential for multilingual citizenship. Chapter 7, Language policy and planning, and mobilisation in post-​colonial civil societies, by Kathleen Heugh, provides an overview of civil society engagement with public sector LPP in former colonial states in Africa, Asia, and the Americas characterised by high levels of societal multilingualism. Heugh suggests civil society can and does make significant contributions at various stages of the policy cycle, but clearly government is responsible for legislation and effecting implementation. She also argues that policies intended to achieve equality and justice need to be informed by reliable evidence-​based data rather than ideological, often well-​meaning but evidence-​poor, advice provided by influential agents and interest groups in both civil society and the public sector. Chapter 8, Language and territory, by Virginie Mamadouh, introduces the relationship between territories, languages, and LPP, emphasising the sociological and cultural dimensions of this relationship (which may also be approached from a legal perspective through the concept of territoriality). Key issues and concepts regarding the territorial character of LPP interventions are highlighted, illustrating how these are influenced by differing conceptions and understanding of territory and of the relationship between territory and language, extending to actors’ perceptions of their own place in this space. 17

Michele Gazzola, François Grin, Linda Cardinal, and Kathleen Heugh

In Chapter 9, Languages, the labour market, and trade, Gilles Grenier and Weiguo Zhang bring an economic analysis of the role of language skills in the labour market and international trade. The authors investigate the economic value of language, which can be approached from a variety of angles, including communication, culture, and human capital. Although the rationale for LPP is often focussed on the dominant language or lingua franca for purposes of labour and trade, it may neglect the cultural and human value of minority languages. Policy-​makers are advised to pay attention to civil society’s desire to protect and preserve linguistic diversity. Bengt-​Arne Wickström and Michele Gazzola, in Chapter 10, The economics of language policy and planning, explain under which conditions government LPP is motivated and justified by problems of market failure (inefficiencies) in a laisser-​faire situation as well as by a wish for equity and fairness between different individuals. They discuss how a reference to cost-​effectiveness and the use of cost–​benefit analysis can help address practical decision-​making problems in language planning and analyse the policy implications of differences in the cost structures of different language-​planning measures. Chapter 11, More than one language: cognitive perspectives and implications for language policy, by Mirta Vernice and Antonella Sorace, provides insight into the cognitive linguistic benefits of bilingualism across the lifespan. In so doing, the authors emphasise the importance for education and decision-​makers to consider how and why the provision or denial of bilingual education has lifelong implications for vulnerable and minority communities.

Stage 2 –​The politics of language and agenda-​setting A public problem can only be identified as such once it is included in a political agenda. Political parties, the executive, and public organisations therefore need to participate in identifying, debating, and proposing solutions to a language issue at this stage. The agenda-​setting process includes media coverage, and internal and external mobilisation of political and para-​political actors. This section, therefore, is devoted to the politics of language and competition for power. It includes the analysis of discourse about language policy. In Chapter 12, Power and the politics of language, Selma K. Sonntag examines how power and politics affect LPP through three approaches: rational, ideological, and institutional. The limitations and challenges of each of these approaches are then further explored to offer guidance to policy-​makers on how to frame language policy agendas. Chapter 13, Language policy and discourse in the public sphere: the discursive construction of language and multilingualism as policy objects, by Jaffer Sheyholislami and Rachelle Vessey, introduces the concepts of discourse and discourse analysis, which proposes methodological approaches to understand how language has been used to influence human behaviour and thinking in the fields of applied linguistics and sociolinguistics over the last two to three decades. The analysis of the discursive aspects of LPP are important to understand how the policy agenda is determined. In Chapter 14, Inter-​group relations and attitudes: conceptualisation, measurement, and relevance for language policy and planning, Guillaume Fürst, using the tools of social psychology, presents a quantitative (measurement) methodology for identifying inter-​group relations and attitudes towards languages and multilingualism at various stages of the policy cycle.

Stage 3 –​Policy formulation and adoption In this third phase, the decision-​maker undertakes several procedures. These include setting the regulatory means considered necessary to implement the language policy (e.g., the legal basis), 18

Language policy and planning: from theory to practice

setting the goals of the policy, defining the methods of operation, proposing alternative solutions to tackle the problem, defining causal models of intervention, identifying the resources to mobilise policy (inputs), identifying expected outputs and outcomes, identifying the relevant actors (target group, stakeholders), and setting timeframes. This is the core business of language policy. It requires a robust theory of how specific measures deliver certain effects, under what conditions, at what (material and symbolic) cost, with benefits and costs accruing to whom. It explores the policy instruments available to language policy-​makers, as well as the issues that arise when designing a multi-​level language policy. These instruments are meant to ensure that the most important and relevant techniques that characterise and reveal the advantages and drawbacks of language policies are available to policy-​makers. In Chapter 15, Language policy design and programme theory, François Grin presents the concept of programme theory, which is central to policy design. Its function is to spell out the causal relationships between the resources invested in a policy (the inputs), the direct effects of a policy (the outputs), and its consequences in terms of the variables that a policy is intended to change (the outcomes). Spelling out and understanding how these relationships are influenced by surrounding conditions and events also helps to explain why a policy ‘does what it does’ and provides an indispensable reality check. Chapter 16, Language policy instruments, by Linda Cardinal, introduces the theory and practice of language policy instruments (LPI). These include language action plans, censuses, information campaigns, and specific tools for service delivery that go beyond legal instruments (legislation) set out to articulate official policy. It suggests that these instruments can be debated at each stage of the policy cycle, and the advantages of LPI analysis for decision-​makers and practitioners are explained. In Chapter 17, Costs and benefits of language policy: how to measure them, François Vaillancourt presents methods commonly used by economists to estimate the costs and the benefits of public policies. He provides five practical examples of application, namely, acquisition planning aimed at providing schooling in the native language of a minority group; acquisition planning aimed at teaching a second language; public provision of services in a minority language; state-​regulated private provision of services in each language; and public provision of minority-​language signage. Chapter 18, Governance, complexity, and multi-​level language policy and planning, by Huw Lewis and Elin Royles, focusses on the development of language policy by actors at different levels of policy and decision-​making. A multi-​level, multi-​actor framework is provided to help decision-​makers understand how actors at different levels and areas of responsibility interact, and how these interactions affect policy development. In Chapter 19, Language rights and protection of linguistic minorities: international legal instruments, their development, and implementation, Roberta Medda-​ Windischer and Sergiu Constantin explain normative frameworks and legal principles for LPP in relation to language rights and linguistic minorities. They distinguish between ‘hard law’ legally binding instruments, and ‘soft law’ documents that are not legally binding but exert political influence on policy.

Stage 4 –​Implementation and monitoring Implementation is the carrying out of language policy. Implementation involves the set of processes realised to achieve the aims of language policy, while monitoring refers to the tools and procedures to assess the progress of implementation. Concrete instruments for steering and managing language policy are clearly spelled out to identify who should do what, when, and how. Implementation produces outputs (deliverables) and outcomes, monitored through data collected 19

Michele Gazzola, François Grin, Linda Cardinal, and Kathleen Heugh

for indicators designed to track and measure implementation. The chapters below address the practical conditions and difficulties in implementing language policy in different contexts and domains, and well as tools for monitoring. Chapter 20, Principles for language policy implementation, by Helaina Gaspard, presents a four-​part framework (resources or inputs, interim yields or outputs, end results or outcomes, and socio-​institutional context) for guiding the implementation of language policy. The author illustrates how to use the framework to identify the strengths and weaknesses of implementation measures, and she presents the example of the official languages policy of Canada. In Chapter 21, Language policy implementation from an interactive governance perspective, Sebastian Godenhjelm draws attention to the complexity in the process of implementing policy. This includes the process of increasing interaction between hard law and soft law policy instruments and interactive governance mechanisms. The intention is to illustrate actual decision-​ making processes and the material and non-​material determinants of the process. In Chapter 22, Indicators in language policy and planning, Michele Gazzola and Gabriele Iannàccaro explain the central role of indicators in policy implementation and monitoring. In so doing, they explain the concepts of indicators, indicator systems and information systems in policy implementation and monitoring. They also explain a methodology for deconstructing complex concepts into their constitutive parts and then how to link these to quantifiable indicators. The role of sociolinguistic surveys in populating an indicator system is also explored. The authors use examples of LPP indicators to evaluate minority language vitality to demonstrate the properties of a good indicator and indicator system.

Stage 5 –​Evaluation Evaluation is the final stage of the policy cycle. In this stage, data collected during the monitoring stage (and possibly from other external sources) are used to form a judgement on the policy based on criteria such as effectiveness, efficiency, and fairness. The design for and protocols for the collection of these data need to conform to rigorous controls regarding quality, validity, and reliability. Evaluation is an important stage in which feedback and accountability to the public debate is provided. This section contains chapters of a rather technical nature in which the reader can find a toolkit of quantitative and qualitative techniques used in the evaluation of language policies. Chapter 23, Quantitative methods in language policy and planning: statistical measurement and identification of causal patterns, by Antonio Di Paolo, relates the statistical evaluation of the broad impact of language policies to recent findings in the econometrics of impact evaluation. The chapter includes several empirical strategies that can be adopted, depending on the type of intervention and data availability (distinguishing between experimental and non-​experimental data), to achieve causal estimates of the impact of language policies. The chapter includes a brief discussion of recent studies that apply different econometric methodologies. In Chapter 24, Qualitative methods in language policy and planning: ethnographic monitoring, Teresa L. McCarty and Kyle Halle-​Erby introduce the methodology of ethnographic assessment as one that includes participant and non-​participant observation, in-​depth interviews, document collection, and analysis in collaboration with stakeholders. The authors explore the utility of ethnographic methods for a critical qualitative evaluation of LPP. They argue that ethnographic methods of analysis sit at the intersection of description, interpretation, and evaluation, where evaluation refers not to causal impact assessment, but to a form of valuing in which researchers and stakeholders collaborate to determine a policy’s worth. 20

Language policy and planning: from theory to practice

Part III –​Contexts of language policy and planning Part III provides examples in 15 chapters (Chapters 25–​39) to illustrate the real-​world applications of LPP in different contexts and at different levels. For this reason, there is greater attention to cases and contexts. These chapters cover many of the classic topics of LPP, from the protection and promotion of minority languages to the management of multilingualism in officially multilingual countries and the linguistic integration of immigrants. They describe contexts in which language policies can be studied through the language policy cycle framework. Chapter 25, Official multilingualism, by Nenad Stojanović, provides a comparative assessment of regimes or contexts in which multilingualism is designated official policy. In such cases, two or more languages are legally recognised as the language of a polity, meaning that documents, services, and official communication should be provided in more than one language. The chapter offers a conceptual roadmap and an overview of scholarly discussions of the rationale for official policies of multilingualism. The author identifies three approaches (parity, minority enhancement, and proportionality) that support the principle of equality in multilingual policies, and he explains the territoriality and personality principles in the administration of multilingualism. In Chapter 26, Minority language protection and promotion, Brian Ó Curnáin and Conchúr Ó Giollagáin examine LPP challenges relating to regional and minority languages. Referring to language protection and promotion for minority languages in LPP as MIN LPP , the authors consider the role of public debate and symbiotic (macro-​and micro-​level) policy, planning, and implementation interventions that are necessary to ensure language acquisition, vitality, and the sustainability of minority languages to support ethnolinguistic cohesion and practical benefits across society. Chapter 27, Reclaiming indigenous languages, by Carlos Sánchez Avendaño, focusses on the reclamation or revitalisation of languages associated with Aboriginal, ancestral, autochthonous, First Nations, and Indigenous peoples. Using a ‘language displacement framework’, the author discusses the process of conceptualising and scoping the methods, practices, movements, and initiatives for language revitalisation. Challenges for language planning that take account of community interests and perspectives and intra-​community factors are analysed in terms of how they influence the design and implementation of language revitalisation efforts. In Chapter 28, International and supra-​ national organisations, Lisa McEntee-​ Atalianis examines language regimes in an international and a supra-​national multilingual organisation, that is, the United Nations and the European Union. The focus is on balancing economic pragmatism and expediency with protection of democratic rights and linguistic diversity. Limitations of current language regimes are identified along with suggestions for review and reform. Theoretical perspectives, including the need for empirical studies to support the policy analysis of alternative options, are considered. Allocative and distributive considerations are distinguished from moral or rights-​based arguments. Chapter 29, Multilingual cities, by Ingrid Gogolin and Sarah McMonagle, focusses on language policies in cities increasingly characterised by highly diverse, migrant, and multilingual populations. Currently, no systematic research is available about the formulation, effects, and consequences of policy for linguistic diversity in cities. The authors provide examples of research methodologies that could be used to inform LPP for cities, illustrating these with descriptions and linguistic land-​and-​soundscapes in Berlin. In Chapter 30, Language education policies: the role of the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages, Cinzia Colaiuda reviews foreign language teaching and bilingual education based on policies and frameworks established by the Council of Europe with particular attention to the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR). The author discusses 21

Michele Gazzola, François Grin, Linda Cardinal, and Kathleen Heugh

language education policy instruments, how the CEFR is used in Europe, its influence beyond Europe, and its use for language assessment. Chapter 31, Language policy, literacy, and multilingualism, by Joseph (Joe) Lo Bianco, brings an analysis of language and literacy policy in multilingual post-​colonial and /​or low-​income countries in the Asia-​Pacific. These are settings that often rely on bilateral or multilateral assistance, exposing domestic policy-​making to influence or even full dependency on external agencies. Lo Bianco explains how to reconcile divergent interests in framing and implementing language policies, and why awareness of the power differentials and interests of different actors is critical in analysing LPP. Chapter 32, Language policy in higher education, by Maria Teresa Zanola, addresses the management of linguistic diversity in academic teaching and research. Key challenges and concerns for language policies in higher education are identified through an extensive literature review and analysis of theoretical and practical considerations found in this literature. In Chapter 33, Reine Meylaerts addresses Public services and translation policy. In today’s multilingual world, democratic principles of equal access to public services necessitate the inclusion of translation and interpreting services in LPP to facilitate communication between individuals and authorities. Prototypical translation policies and real-​world applications in selected settings are presented. Meylaerts draws connections between these policies and linguistic justice, social cohesion, integration and non-​discrimination of Indigenous people, territorial minorities, migrants, and refugees. Chapter 34, Language policy and regulation in the old and new media, by Tarlach McGonagle and Tom Moring, highlights the relationship between media and LPP policies, and the implications of digital media for LPP. Whereas LPP in media fell under national LPP in the past, digitalisation has unsettled this association and previously used policy instruments are no longer adequate. There is therefore a need for legal and policy change, including in international instruments that encourage states and global actors to upgrade LPP to promote and protect endangered languages in the context of multi-​media and multi-​stakeholder concerns. Stefaan van der Jeught, in Chapter 35, Language policy and linguistic landscape, argues that government needs to regulate the commercial and public-​sector use of language in the ‘linguistic landscape’. Legal concepts of state sovereignty, territoriality, and individual linguistic freedom are defined. Differences between regulatory official and private language use, where the principle of individual freedom of language choice and use is upheld, are considered together with the rights of historical minorities. Specific jurisdictions in Canada (Quebec), France, Belgium, and Italy are examined to illustrate the application of commonly used legal principles. Chapter 36, Sign languages and language policy, by Timothy Reagan, brings an overview of the nature and characteristics of language policy for sign languages and compares these with policy for spoken languages. LPP based on deficit understandings of deafness and sign languages results in significant differences from LPP developed for spoken languages. Reagan argues for positive and proactive rather than deficit policy. In Chapter 37, Planned languages, Sabine Fiedler discusses deliberately planned and constructed languages designed for international communication as an ‘extreme case’ of language planning. She provides an historical overview of different kinds of planned languages, including Volapük, Latino sine flexione, Ido, Occidental, Basic English, and Interlingua. The focus is on Esperanto, an autonomous system with a diverse and productive speech community, and how language planning functions within this planned language.

22

Language policy and planning: from theory to practice

Chapter 38 by H. Ekkehard Wolff, Transnational agencies and national language policy and planning in multilingual Africa, addresses the influence of various international and transnational agencies, some with colonial histories, on LPP in African countries. Colonial administrations, to some extent, have been replaced by agencies operating under the umbrella of cultural diplomacy, often pursuing the promotion of languages of former or present-​day colonial states or powerful agencies located beyond African state nations. Attention is given to these as well as to African institutions and independent agencies with LPP interests. Katalin Buzási, in Chapter 39, Language policies and integration in the labour market and society in Europe, focusses on conceptualising and evaluating the effects of language policy on the socio-​economic integration of migrants. Despite positive evidence of language training, inclusive education and citizenship, and integration policies for migrants in Europe, results are often context-​dependent and not robust. Convincing evidence requires studies that (1) explore causal impacts using policy impact evaluation methods, (2) attempt to identify the role of languages in these policies and (3) use data science, machine learning techniques, and social media data to mitigate limited data availability.

5  Conclusions and perspectives for future research Language policies play an important role in regulating private and public usages. Explaining how language policies are adopted, planned, promoted, implemented, and evaluated is the main goal of this handbook. Our intention is to propose key concepts, theories, methodologies, and tools to make better sense of the ‘policy component’ of the language policy debate. Our point of departure for this handbook is our commitment to a pragmatic and interdisciplinary approach to language policy and planning. A multiplicity of lenses is needed to do justice to the complexity and different angles (e.g., philosophical, political, economic, social, cultural, psychological, and legal) from which language issues raised by citizens, groups, and businesses make their way into government agendas and are turned into language policies. What this handbook brings into the normative discussion on language policies is twofold. First, it rests on the view that the state is central to the governance of linguistic diversity. More specifically, it reminds us that language policies are public policies, i.e., that language is a public issue, not only a matter of personal preferences. States and governments at different institutional levels (i.e., national, regional, local, and potentially at the international level too) determine which languages are the object of explicit policies while others are not. Note that the approach adopted in this handbook is compatible with the analysis of implicit language policies, that is, policies that are implemented through a series of instruments even in the absence of explicit plans. For this reason, it is also compatible with the study of public policies that do not primarily deal with languages, but that can encompass linguistic dimensions. Education is the obvious example, but there are other policy areas such as migration management, healthcare, or the organisation of the public administration that can have a transversal language policy dimension. In these cases, language policy can be viewed as the linguistic component of another public policy. Secondly, language policies are not only the product of interest-​based politics. They are the result of processes of policy-​making. As suggested by Peters and Zittoun (2016), much of the work in public policy is about these processes . The handbook analyses and discusses the different stages of the policy process in order to provide detailed information of the different steps involved while developing language policies. That said, there is a wide panoply of approaches to study the policy cycle or certain aspects of it, including descriptive, rational choice, institutional, political sociology, and critical public

23

Michele Gazzola, François Grin, Linda Cardinal, and Kathleen Heugh

policy. The handbook does not endorse one approach. Taken as a whole, it sets the stage for a more comprehensive view of the processes of language policy-​making, looking more specifically at the different stages of the policy cycle. The chapters of this handbook serve to highlight and understand each phase of the cycle, as well as present the most important contexts of LPP. They also provide valuable information and help draw lessons for further research. This leads us to the discussion of the potential future uses of this handbook; several avenues can be mentioned, of which two will be sketched briefly here. First, the approach developed throughout these 39 chapters lends itself to the study of language policy processes and outcomes in a comparative perspective. The policy cycle framework can be applied across contexts including countries and sectors. The main question from a comparative perspective is that of the similarities and differences between processes of language policy-​making between one context and another. However, comparing public policies does not mean making a simple juxtaposition of different cases involving a description of similarities and differences between them (Dodds 2018; Lanzalaco & Prontera 2012). The comparison of public policies requires the use of a common analytical framework that defines the criteria and the parameters used in studying different cases and countries, in order to derive some general or at least generalisable conclusions.6 The language policy framework presented in this handbook can facilitate comparative studies in LPP. Although the application of the comparative method to LPP is not entirely new,7 it has not been done systematically using the policy cycle framework. According to Heidenheimer, Heclo, and Adams (2005: 13–​14) there are several reasons that explain why a systematic comparison of public policies can be useful. Through a comparison of the policy processes in different countries or regions, we can improve our understanding of how the state operates, and how governments deal with concrete issues. In addition, public policies in different countries display increasing interdependence with those in other countries. Finally, comparing public policies dealing with similar issues in different countries can provide guidance in designing better policies. The concept of best practices, in this respect, is a central one informed by the comparative method in LPP (Cardinal & Williams 2020). Recall that the concept of best practice only makes sense with a comparative approach; the fact that a practice has been successful does not mean per se that it is the best solution, unless it is has been thoroughly compared with others. The search for best practices, i.e. standards or guidelines—​in particular for the design of policy—​has been championed by many scholars (Ó Flatharta et al. 2014; Cardinal & Williams 2020).8 However, identifying best practices raises the question of the extent to which it is possible to export practices from one context to the other. For example, looking for best practices in countries where some major language used internationally happens to be a national or official language, and assessing whether these could be applied to regions where the languages used are confined to a specific territory amounts to adding a further level of complexity. That said, research on best practices can be beneficial to policy-​makers, keeping in mind that here are many variables at play in LPP and that best practices vary from one jurisdiction to another (Cairney 2016; Grin et al. 2022).9 Second, the policy cycle approach proposes theory-​based, yet also operational ways to deal with the plurality of dimensions of our linguistic environments. This plurality of dimensions unavoidably characterises the choices advocated by social actors as solutions to the challenges of linguistic diversity. Relatedly, the solutions put forward by different actors may also be very different, particularly with respect to the non-​material or symbolic implications of language policies. The policy cycle approach can help to overcome stalemates in this area—​as it happens, one of the perennial problems of LPP. More specifically, it offers a consistent framework within which we can organise the joint consideration of the material and symbolic issues at stake. Language policy and planning involves material and non-​material questions, market and non-​market values, 24

Language policy and planning: from theory to practice

and financial and symbolic implications. This duality turns up at every stage of the policy cycle, from the initial debates over a language issue to the ex-​post evaluation of a policy. The identification and operationalisation of non-​market values has been the object of substantial research in areas like cultural and environmental policy (see e.g. Throsby 2000; Wheelan 2011). It sometimes uses the technique of contingent valuation (Diamond & Hausman 1994). Approaches to non-​market value have occasionally been suggested in LPP, drawing on the parallels that can be made between language policy and environmental policy (Grin 1994; Wickström et al. 2018). Others highlight, under the label of ‘disenfranchisement’, the negative implications of excluding certain languages from the operations of international organisations (Ginsburgh & Weber 2011; Gazzola 2016). Still, much works remains to be done in order to take the full measure of the different dimensions of language policy options. This concerns assessing the importance that social actors assign to various linguistic features of their environment that cannot be measured in monetary terms (contrary to, for example, language-​related wage differentials). In addition, aiming for a broader, more inclusive approach to the dimensions of LPP highlights the importance of studying its implications for language rights and linguistic justice, with its rapidly growing body of research.10 As indicated at the beginning of this chapter, such developments are crucial for moving from acknowledgements of principle to operational procedures in the development of democratic language policies. These are policies in which the principles of social justice, human rights, and fairness are likely to be best secured through robust and systematic planning. Since the implications of LPP reach across civil society and the public sector, interdisciplinarity is indispensable to achieve democratic LPP. Our purpose in this volume has been not only to restore a clarity of perspective on the role and functions of LPP proper, but also to strengthen the position of LPP across, and in relation with a wide range of disciplines. We hope that this handbook, in addition to being of service to scholars and practitioners of language policy, as well as to citizens at large with an interest in language policy and planning, can also open up new avenues to inspire renewed research agendas.

Acknowledgements A handbook such as this is part of a much broader intellectual venture, which has been nurtured by innumerable conversations among the contributors, but also marked by the inputs of many other colleagues to whom we owe a debt of gratitude, independently of the extent of convergence or disagreement between this book and the various approaches to LPP put forth in their work. Although it is impossible to thank everyone by name, we wish to acknowledge this intellectual debt. We also want to thank Mark Fettes and Javier Alcalde for their useful remarks on an earlier version of this introduction. Finally, we would like to salute, in deepest affection, the memory of our dear friend and colleague Gabriele Iannàccaro, who has co-​authored Chapter 22 but has left us before this book went to press.

Notes 1 For a historical anthology, see Ricento (2015b). 2 For example, in chronological order, Calvet (2002); Dell’Aquila & Iannàccaro (2004); Spolsky (2004); May & Hornberger (2008); Spolsky (2009); McCarty (2011); Chapelle (2012); Spolsky (2012); Bayley et al. (2013: ­chapters 26 to 33); Johnson (2013); Narvaja de Arnoux & Nothstein (2013); Beacco (2016); Marten (2016); Tollefson & Pérez-​Milans (2018); Kimura & Fairbrother (2020). 3 For example van Parijs (2004); Ricento (2006); Arzoz (2008); Ginsburgh & Weber (2011); van Parijs (2011); Cardinal & Sonntag (2015); Vila & Bretxa (2015); Ricento (2015a); Gazzola & Wickström (2016);

25

Michele Gazzola, François Grin, Linda Cardinal, and Kathleen Heugh

4 5 6

7 8 9

10

Skutnabb-​Kangas & Phillipson (2016); Ginsburgh & Weber (2016); Beacco et al. (2017); González-​ Núñez & Meylaerts (2017); Lane-​Mercier et al. (2018); Kraus & Grin (2018); Gazzola et al. (2018); Oakes & Peled (2018); Grin et al. (2022); Lewis & McLeod (2022); McLeod et al. (2022); Skutnabb-​ Kangas & Phillipson (2023); Gazzola et al. (2023); Albaugh et al. (2023). The public policy cycle framework should not be confused with the management process model used in Language Management Theory (LMT), in which the process refers to the behaviour towards language (Kimura & Fairbrother 2020). On LMT, see also Nekvapil (2016). This is not to say that issues internal to a specific language such as conventions on the use of gender-​ sensitive pronouns in public documents are not relevant for language policy, but they belong to a class of their own, and they mostly pertain to corpus planning issues. In political science and sociology, for example, the comparative method has been used to test the validity of theoretical hypotheses or to formulate general empirical statements on the relationships between different variables. It is used in addition to other methods of scientific inquiry such the experimental and the statistical/​econometric method (see Lijphart 1971; Sartori 1990; Collier 1993 for a discussion). See for example Laitin & Ramachandran (2016); Turgeon & Gagnon (2015); Liu (2015); Morris (2010). See Gazzola & Grin (2017) for an overview. In his work, Williams has called for detailed evidence of language policy development and implementation in different contexts to help determine what is an innovative and appropriate language policy design (Cardinal & Llewellyn 2022). Building on these lessons, comparative LPP can be useful to identify differences and similarities in the processes of language policy-​making, looking at the role of contexts and institutions or values and culture. It is a key feature of comparative public policy that policy-​making takes place in particular contexts and environments (March & Olsen 1989; Rayner & Howlett 2009). On linguistic justice, see, in particular, Shorten (2017), and Carey (2019); and volumes edited by De Schutter & Robichaud (2017), Peled et al. (2015), Léger & Lewis (2017), and Bonotti & Mac Giolla Chríost (2019). See also Morales-​Gálvez & Riera-​Gil (2019), and Alcalde (2018).

References Akinnaso, F. Niyi (1991) “Toward the development of a multilingual language policy in Nigeria”, Applied Linguistics vol. 12 (1), 29–​61. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/12.1.29 Albaugh, Ericka, Linda Cardinal, and Rémi Léger (eds.) (2023) States of Language Policies: Theorizing Continuity and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Alcalde, Javier (2018) “Linguistic justice: an interdisciplinary overview of the literature”, in Gazzola, Michele, Torsten Templin, and Bengt-​ Arne Wickström (eds.) Language Policy and Linguistic Justice: Economic, Philosophical and Sociolinguistic Approaches, 65–​149. Berlin: Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-319-75263-1_2 Araral, Eduardo Jr., Scott Fritzen, Michael Howlett, M. Ramesh, and Xun Wu (eds.) (2013) The Routledge Handbook of Public Policy. Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203097571 Arzoz, Xabier (ed.) (2008) Respecting Linguistic Diversity in the European Union. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/wlp.2 Bamgbose, Ayo (2000) Language and Exclusion: The Consequences of Language Policies in Africa. Münster: LIT Verlag. Bayley, Richard, Richard Cameron, and Ceil Lucas (eds.) (2013) The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199744084.001.0001 Beacco, Jean-​Claude (2016) École et politiques linguistiques. Paris: Didier. Beacco, Jean-​Claude, Hans-​Jürgen Krumm, David Little, and Philia Thalgott (eds.) (2017) The Linguistic Integration of Adult Migrants. Strasbourg: Council of Europe/​Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Bell, Allan (2014) The Guidebook to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Wiley-​Blackwell. Bonotti, Matteo and Diarmait Mac Giolla Chríost (eds.) (2019) Linguistic Justice in an Interdisciplinary Context. Sociolinguistica, vol. 33, Special Issue. https://doi.org/10.1515/soci-2019-0001 Cairney, Paul (2016) The Politics of Evidence-​ Based Policy Making. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/ 10.1057/978-1-137-51781-4 Calvet, Louis-​Jean (2002) Le marché aux langues. Essai de politologie linguistique sur la mondialisation. Paris: Plon.

26

Language policy and planning: from theory to practice Canagarajah, Suresh (2005) “Ethnographic methods in language policy”, in Ricento, Thomas (ed.) An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method, 153–​169. Malden: Blackwell. Cardinal, Linda and Anastasia Llewellyn (2022) “Best practices and language policy designs: lessons from Canada and Wales”, in McLeod, Wilson, Rob Dunbar, Kathryn Jones, and John Walsh (eds.) Language, Policy and Territory: A Festschrift for Colin H. Williams, 223–​236. London: Routledge. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-030-94346-2_12 Cardinal, Linda and Selma K. Sonntag (2015) State Traditions and Language Regimes. Kingston: McGill-​ Queen’s University Press. Cardinal, Linda and Colin Williams (2020) “Bridging the gap between the politics of recognition and the politics of language service delivery in Ontario and Wales”, Treatises and Documents, Journal of Ethnic Studies, vol. 84, https://​rig-​td.si/​en/​iss​ues/​?funct​ion=​84 Carey, Brian (2019) “The preference satisfaction model of linguistic advantage”, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, vol. 22 (2), 134–​154. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230. 2016.1270905 Chapelle, Carol (ed.) (2012) Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Boston: Wiley-​Blackwell. https://doi. org/10.1002/9781405198431 Coenen-​Huther, Jacques (1989) “Sociologie et interdisciplinarité: modalités, problèmes, perspectives”, Revue suisse de sociologie, vol. 15 (1), 1–​13. Collier, David (1993) “The comparative method”, in Finifter, Ada W. (ed.) Political Science: The State of the Discipline II, 105–​119. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association. Cooper, Robert L. (1989) Language Planning and Social Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dell’Aquila, Vittorio and Gabriele Iannàccaro. 2004. La pianificazione linguistica. Lingue, società e istituzioni. Rome: Carocci. De Schutter, Helder and David Robichaud (eds.) (2017) Linguistic Justice. Van Parijs and His Critics. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315645476 Diamond, Peter A. and Jerry A. Hausman (1944). “Contingent valuation. Is some number better than no number?”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 8 (4), 45–​64. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.8.4.45 Dodds, Annalise (2018) Comparative Public Policy. London: Palgrave. Duchêne, Alexandre and Monica Heller (eds.) (2007) Discourses of Endangerment. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Edwards, John (2023) Multilingualism. Understanding Linguistic Diversity (2nd). London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Fairbrother, Lisa and Goro Christoph Kimura (2020) “Introduction: what is a language management approach to language problems and why do we need it?”, in Kimura, Goro Christoph and Lisa Fairbrother (eds.) (2020) A Language Management Approach to Language Problems. Integrating Micro and Macro Dimensions, 1–​30. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/wlp.7.01fai Fairclough, Norman (2013) “Critical discourse analysis”, in Handford, Michael and James Paul Gee (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 9–​20. London: Routledge. Fishman, Joshua A. (ed.) (1974) Advances in Language Planning. The Hague: Mouton. https://doi.org/ 10.1515/9783111583600 Fishman, Joshua A. (1991) Reversing Language Shift. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/ 10.21832/9781800418097 Fowler, Roger, and Gunther Kress (2018) “Critical linguistics”, in Fowler, Roger, Bob Hodge, Gunther Kress, and Tony Trew (eds.) Language and Control, 185–​213. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/ 10.4324/9780429436215-10 Gaspard, Helaina (2019) Canada’s Official Languages. Policy Versus Work Practice in the Federal Public Service. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvcwp0cg Gazzola, Michele (2016). "Multilingual communication for whom? Language policy and fairness in the European Union", European Union Politics, vol. 17 (4), 546–​569. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116516657672 Gazzola, Michele, Federico Gobbo, David Cassels Johnson, and Jorge Antonio Leoni de León (2023) Epistemological and Theoretical Foundations in Language Policy and Planning. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22315-0 Gazzola, Michele and François Grin (2017) “Comparative language policy and evaluation: concepts, indicators and implications for translation policy”, in Meylaerts, Reine and Gabriel González Nuñez (eds.) Translation and Public Policy: Interdisciplinary Perspectives and Case Studies, 83–​112. London: Routledge. https:// doi.org/10.4324/9781315521770-5

27

Michele Gazzola, François Grin, Linda Cardinal, and Kathleen Heugh Gazzola, Michele, Torsten Templin, and Bengt-​Arne Wickström (eds.) (2018) Language Policy and Linguistic Justice. Economic, Philosophical and Sociolinguistic Approaches. Berlin: Springer. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-3-319-75263-1 Gazzola, Michele and Bengt-​Arne Wickström (eds.) (2016) The Economics of Language Policy. Boston: MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262034708.001.0001 Ginsburgh, Victor and Shlomo Weber (2011) How Many Languages Do We Need? Princeton: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.23943/princeton/9780691136899.001.0001 Ginsburgh, Victor and Shlomo Weber (eds.) (2016) The Palgrave Handbook of Economics and Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-32505-1 González-​Núñez, Gabriel and Reine Meylaerts (eds.) (2017) Translation and Public Policy. Interdisciplinary Perspectives and Case Studies. London/​New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315521770 Grin, François (1994) “L’identification des bénéfices de l’aménagement linguistique: la langue comme actif naturel”, in Phlipponneau, C. and A. Boudreau (eds.) Sociolinguistique et aménagement des langues, 67–​ 101. Moncton: Centre de Recherche en Linguistique Appliquée. Grin, François (2003) “Diversity as paradigm, analytical device, and policy goal”, in Kymlicka, Will and Alan Patten (eds.) Language Rights and Political Theory, 169–​188. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grin, François (2005) “The economics of language policy implementation: identifying and measuring costs”, in Alexander, N. (ed.) Mother Tongue-​Based Bilingual Education in Southern Africa. The Dynamics of Implementation, 11–​25. Cape Town: PRAESA. Grin, François (2018) “On some fashionable terms in multilingualism research. Critical assessment and implications for language policy”, in Kraus, Peter A. and François Grin (eds.) The Politics of Multilingualism. Europeanisation, Globalisation and Linguistic Governance, 247–​274. Amsterdam/​ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/wlp.6.11gri Grin, François (2021) “Misconceptions of economics and political economy in sociolinguistic research”, in Petrovic, John E. and Bedrettin Yazan (eds.) The Commodification of Language: Conceptual Concerns and Empirical Manifestations, 56–​70. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003028581-51a Grin, François (2022a) “Principles of integrated language policy”, in Grin, François, László Marácz, and Nike Pokorn (eds.) Advances in Interdisciplinary Language Policy, 23–​42. Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/wlp.9 Grin, François (2022b) “Progress in LPP: towards an assessment of challenges from critical perspectives”, Sociolinguistica, vol. 36 (1–​2), https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​soci-​2022-​0002 Grin, François, M. Célio Conceição, Peter A. Kraus, László Marácz, Žaneta Ozolina, Nike Pokorn, and Anthony Pym (eds.) (2018) Mobility and Inclusion in Multilingual Europe. The MIME Vademecum, www.mime-​proj​ect.org. Grin, François, László Marácz, and Nike Pokorn (eds.) (2022) Advances in Interdisciplinary Language Policy. Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/wlp.9 Heidenheimer, Arnold J., Hugh Heclo, and Carolyn Teich Adams (2005) “The politics of social choice”, in Bushouse, Brenda and Howard J. Wiarda (eds.) Comparative Politics. Critical Concepts in Political Science. Vol. 6 –​Comparative Public Policy, 13–​35. Abingdon: Routledge. Heller, Monica (2018) “Socioeconomic junctures, theoretical shifts. A genealogy of language policy and planning research”, in Tollefson, James W. and Miguel Pérez-​Milans (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Language Policy and Planning, 35–​50. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/ oxfordhb/9780190458898.013.6 Heugh, Kathleen (2003) Language Policy and Democracy in South Africa. The Prospects of Equality Within Rights-​Based Policy and Planning. Stockholm: Centre for Research on Bilingualism, Stockholm University. Heugh, Kathleen (2013) “Multilingual education policy in South Africa: constrained by theoretical and historical disconnections”, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, vol. 33, 215–​337. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0267190513000135 Heywood, Andrew (2019) Politics (5th Ed.). Basingstoke: Macmillan. Hornberger, Nancy and David Cassels Johnson (2007) “Slicing the onion ethnographically: layers and spaces in multilingual language education policy and practice”, TESOL Quarterly, vol. 41 (3), 509–​532. https:// doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00083.x Howlett, Michael (2019) The Policy Design Primer. Choosing the Right Tools for the Job. Abingdon: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429401046

28

Language policy and planning: from theory to practice Howlett, Michael, M. Ramesh, and Anthony Perl (2020) Studying Public Policy. Principles and Processes (4th Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hult, Francis M. and David Cassels Johnson (eds.) (2015) Research Methods in Language Policy and Planning: A Practical Guide. Hoboken: Wiley-​Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118340349 Ingram, Helen and Anne L. Schneider (2006) “Policy analysis for democracy”, in Moran, Michael, Martin Rein, and Robert E. Goodin (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, 169–​189. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199548453.003.0008 Jann, Werner and Kai Wegrich (2007) “Theories of the policy cycle”, in Fischer, Frank, Gerald J. Miller, and Mara S. Sidney (eds.) Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods, 43–​62. London: Taylor & Francis. Jaspers, J. (2018) “The transformative limits of translanguaging”, Language and Communication, vol. 58, 1–​ 10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2017.12.001 Johnson, David Cassels (2013) Language Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/ 10.1057/9781137316202 Johnson, David Cassels (2018) “Research methods in language policy and planning”, in Tollefson, James W. and Miguel Pérez-​Milans (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Language Policy and Planning, 51–​70. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190458898.013.2 Kahneman, Daniel and Amos Tversky (eds.) (2000) Choices, Values, and Frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803475 Kaplan, Robert B. and Richard B. Baldauf (1997) Language Planning. From Practice to Theory. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781800418059 Kelly-Holmes, Helen (2023) “Language policy 4.0: Agency, readiness and relevance in an increasingly automated future”, Working Papers in Urban Language & Literacies N. 309. Kimura, Goro Christoph and Fairbrother, Lisa (eds.) (2020) A Language Management Approach to Language Problems. Integrating Micro and Macro Dimensions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi. org/10.1075/wlp.7 Knoepfel, Peter, Corinne Larrue, Frédéric Varone, and Michael Hill (2007) Public Policy Analysis. Bristol: The Policy Press [Original: Analyse et pilotage des politiques publiques (2nd ed.) Geneva-​Basel: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 2006]. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt9qgz7q Kraus, Peter A. and François Grin (eds.) (2018) The Politics of Multilingualism. Europeanisation, Globalization and Linguistic Governance. Amsterdam/​​Philadelphia: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/wlp.6 Laitin, David and Rajesh Ramachandran (2016) “Language policy and human development”, American Political Science Review, vol. 110 (3), 457–​480, https://​doi.org/​10.1017/​S00030​5541​6000​265 Lane-​Mercier, Gillian, Denise Merkle, and Jane M. Koustas (eds.) (2018) Minority Languages, National Languages, and Official Language Policies. Kingston: McGill-​Queen’s University Press. https://doi. org/10.2307/j.ctv941x3t Lanzalaco, Luca and Andrea Prontera (2012) Politiche pubbliche comparate. Bologna: Il Mulino. Léger, Rémi and Huw Lewis (eds.) (2017) Normative Political Theory’s Contribution to Language Policy Research. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, vol. 38 (7), Special Issue. https://doi. org/10.1080/01434632.2016.1192177 Lewis, Hugh and Wilson McLeod (eds.) (2022) Language Revitalisation and Social Transformation. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Lijphart, Arendt (1971) “Comparative politics and the comparative method”, American Political Science Review, vol. 65, 682–​693. https://doi.org/10.2307/1955513 Liu, Amy H. (2015) “The politics of language regime: a comparative analysis of Southeast Asia”, in Cardinal, Linda and Selma K. Sonntag (eds.) State Traditions and Language Regimes, 119–​36. Montreal: McGill-​ Queen’s University Press. Lo Bianco, Joseph (1987) “The national policy on languages”, Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, vol. 10 (2), 23–​32. https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.10.2.03bia Makaki, Vassiliki, Sara Merlino, Lorenza Mondada, Florence Orloff, and Véronique Traverso (2013) “Multilingual practices in professional settings: keeping the delicate balance between progressivity and intersubjectivity”, in Berthoud, Anne-​Claude, François Grin, and Georges Lüdi (eds.) Exploring the Dynamics of Multilingualism, 3–​32. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/mdm.2.01mar March, James G. and Johan P. Olsen (1989) Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Political Life. New York: The Free Press. Marten, Heiko F. (2016) Sprach(en)politik. Tübingen: Narr Franke Attempto Verlag.

29

Michele Gazzola, François Grin, Linda Cardinal, and Kathleen Heugh Martin-​Jones, Marilyn and Ildegrada da Costa Cabral (2018) “The critical ethnographic turn in research in language policy and planning”, in Tollefson, James W. and Miguel Pérez-​Milans (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Language Policy and Planning, 93–​112. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190458898.013.3 May, Stephen (2022) “Superdiversity and its explanatory limits”, Sociolinguistica, vol. 36 (1–​2), https://​doi. org/​10.1515/​solin-​2022-​0018 May, Stephen and Hornberger, Nancy (eds.) (2008) Language Policy and Political Issues in Education. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02344-1 McCarty, Teresa (ed.) (2011) Ethnography and Language Policy. London: Routledge. McLeod, Wilson, Robert Dunbar, Kathryn Jones, and John Walsh (eds.) (2022) Language, Policy and Territory: A Festschrift for Colin H. Williams. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94346-2 McSwan, Jeff (2017) “A multilingual perspective on translanguaging”, American Educational Research Journal, vol. 54 (1), 167–​201. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216683935 Morales-​Gálvez, Sergi and Elvira Riera-​Gil (2019) “Què són polítiques lingüístiques justes? Els paradigmes actuals de la justícia lingüística”, Revista d’Estudis Autonomics i Federals, vol. 30, 25–​56. Morris, Michael A. (ed.) (2010) Canadian Language Policies in Comparative Perspective. Montreal: McGill-​ Queen’s University Press. Muth, Sebastian and Alfonso Del Percio (2018) “Policing for commodification: turning communicative resources into commodities”, Language Policy, vol. 17 (2), 129–​135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-0179441-7 Narvaja de Arnoux, Elvira and Susana Nothstein (eds.) (2013) Temas de glotopolítica. Integración regional sudamericana y panhispanismo. Buenos Aires: Editorial Biblos. Nekvapil, Jiří (2016): “Language management theory as one approach in language policy and planning”, Current Issues in Language Planning, vol. 17 (1), 11–​22. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2016.1108481 Nussbaum, Luci, Emily Moore, and Eulàlia Borras (2013) “Accomplishing multilingualism through plurilingual activities”, in Berthoud, Anne-​Claude, François Grin, and Georges Lüdi (eds.) Exploring the Dynamics of Multilingualism, 229–​252. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/ mdm.2.11nus Ó Flatharta, Peadar, Siv Sandberg, and Colin Williams (2014) From Act to Action: Language Legislation in Finland, Ireland and Wales. Dublin: Fiontar. Oakes, Leigh and Yael Peled (2018) Normative Language Policy. Ethics, Politics, Principles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316534267 Pavlenko, Aneta (2019) “Superdiversity and why it isn’t: reflections on terminological innovation and academic branding”, in Barbara Schmenk, Stephan Breidbach, and Lutz Küster (eds.) Sloganization in Language Education Discourse: Conceptual Thinking in the Age of Academic Marketization, 142–​168. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781788921879-009 Peled, Yael, Peter Ives, and Thomas Ricento (eds.) (2015) Language Policy and Political Theory. Building Bridges, Assessing Breaches. New York: Springer. Pennycook, Alastair (2001) Critical Applied Linguistics: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge. https:// doi.org/10.4324/9781410600790 Peters, B. Guy and Zittoun, Philippe (2016) Contemporary Approaches to Public Policy. London: Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-50494-4 Pupier, Paul and José Woehrling (eds.) (1989) Langue et droit /​Language and Law. Montreal: Wilson & Lafleur. Rayner, Jeremy and Michael Howlett (2009) “Introduction: understanding integrated policy strategies and their evolution”, Policy and Society, vol. 28 (2), 99–​109, https://​doi.10.1016/​j.pol​soc.2009.05.00 Reisigl, Martin (2013) “Critical discourse analysis”, in Bayley, Robert, Richard Cameron, and Ceil Lucas (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics, 67–​90. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi. org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199744084.013.0004 Ricento, Thomas (2006) “Language policy: theory and practice. An introduction”, in Ricento, Thomas (ed.) An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method, 10–​23. Oxford: Blackwell. Ricento, Thomas (2015a) Language Policy and Political Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https:// doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199363391.001.0001 Ricento, Thomas (ed.) (2015b) Language Policy and Planning: Critical Concepts in Linguistics. New York: Routledge.

30

Language policy and planning: from theory to practice Rubin, Joan and Björn H. Jernudd (eds.) (1971) Can Language Be Planned? Sociolinguistic Theory and Practice for Developing Nations. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii. Sanden, Guro R. (2015) “Corporate language policies—​What are they”, Journal of Economics, Business and Management, vol. 3 (11), 1097–​1101, https://​doi. org/​10.7763/​JOEBM.2015.V3.341 Sartori, Giovanni (1990) “Comparazione e metodo comparato”, Rivista italiana di scienza politica, vol. 20 (3), 397–​416. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0048840200009564 Schneider, Anne (2013) “Policy design and transfer”, in Araral, Eduardo Jr., Scott Fritzen, Michael Howlett, M. Ramesh, and Xun Wu (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Public Policy, 217–​228. Abingdon: Routledge. Seedhouse, Paul (2013) “Conversation analysis”, in Bayley, Robert, Richard Cameron, and Ceil Lucas (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics, 91–​110. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi. org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199744084.013.0005 Shorten, Andrew (2017) “Four conceptions of linguistic disadvantage”, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, vol. 38, 607–​621. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2016.1192174 Simon, Herbert A. (1986) “Rationality in psychology and economics”, Journal of Business, vol. 59 (4), 5209–​ 5224. https://doi.org/10.1086/296363 Skutnabb-​Kangas, Tove and Robert Phillipson (eds.) (2016) Language Rights. New York: Routledge. https:// doi.org/10.1002/9781119753926 Skutnabb-​Kangas, Tove and Robert Phillipson (eds.) (2023) Handbook of Linguistic Human Rights. Malden: Wiley Blackwell. Spolsky, Bernard (2004) Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511615245 Spolsky, Bernard (2009) Language Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi. org/10.1017/CBO9780511626470 Spolsky, Bernard (ed.) (2012) The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511979026 Spolsky, Bernard (2022) “Do we need critical educational linguistics?”, Educational Linguistics, vol. 1 (1), https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​edul​ing-​2021-​0003. Throsby, David (2000) Cultural Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9781107590106 Tollefson, James W. (1991). Planning Language, Planning Inequality: Language Policy in the Community. London: Longman. Tollefson, James W. (2006) “Critical theory in language policy”, in Ricento, Thomas (ed.) An Introduction to Language Policy. Theory and Method, 42–​59. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. Turgeon, Luc and Alain-​G. Gagnon (2015) “Bureaucratic language regimes in multilingual states: comparing Belgium and Canada”, in Cardinal, Linda and Selma K. Sonntag (eds.) State Traditions and Language Regimes, 119–​136. Montreal: McGill-​Queen’s University Press. Van Parijs, Philippe (2004) “Europe’s linguistic challenge”, European Journal of Sociology, vol. 45 (1), 113–​ 154. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003975604001407 Van Parijs, Philippe (2011) Linguistic Justice for Europe and for the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199208876.001.0001 Vila, F. Xavier and Vanessa Bretxa (eds.) (2015) Language Policy in Higher Education. The Case of Medium-​ Sized Languages. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783092765 Weinstock, Daniel (2003) “The Antinomy of Language Rights”, in Kymlicka, Will and Alan Patten (eds.) Language Rights and Political Theory, 250-​270. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wheelan, Charles (2011) Introduction to Public Policy. New York/​London: W.W. Norton & Co. Wickström, Bengt-​Arne, Torsten Templin, and Michele Gazzola (2018) “An economics approach to language policy and linguistic justice”, in Gazzola, Michele, Torsten Templin, and Bengt-​Arne Wickström (eds.) Language Policy and Linguistic Justice. Economic, Philosophical and Sociolinguistic Approaches, 3–​64. Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75263-1_1

31

PART I

Foundations of LPP

2 THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGE POLICY AND PLANNING Leigh Oakes

1 Introduction Interventions in language matters enjoy a long history, a fact explained in part by the key role played by language in the distribution of power and resources (Wright 2016: 1). In early modern Europe, for example, the promotion of vernacular languages over Latin during what has been termed the ‘first ecolinguistic revolution’ (Baggioni 1997) served to consolidate the authority of states and the monarchs behind them. As for academic interest in interventions in language matters, this is a much more recent phenomenon. Its origins can be found in ideas emanating from the philosophical writings of eighteenth-​and nineteenth-​century thinkers (e.g., von Humboldt, Fichte, Herder, and Renan), drawn upon for the ‘second ecolinguistic revolution’, which saw vernacular languages elevated to national status as part of the legitimisation of the modern bourgeois classes and their new nation-​states. It is no coincidence that one of these new national languages—​Norwegian—​ was the focus of the study in which the term ‘language planning’ made its first appearance in the literature (Haugen 1959), thus marking the inception of the field of study which has come to be known as language policy and planning (LPP).1 This chapter traces the development of the field from this point onwards. Following a brief discussion of key concepts and definitions, it outlines the research of the pioneer years and the factors that prompted this initial interest. It then surveys two subsequent paradigmatic shifts made in response to new socio-​political circumstances and epistemological advances. While the developments have allowed the field to mature theoretically and methodologically, they have also brought certain challenges. In particular, the growing gap between the preoccupations of LPP practitioners and some LPP researchers risks restricting the transformative or social justice aspirations frequently envisaged for the field. The chapter concludes by suggesting a way forward in the form of a rediscovery of the field’s pragmatic and interdisciplinary origins, as a means of reconnecting with the more practical concerns of policy-​makers. Such concerns are considered here as normative, in the sense that they involve some value-​based reasoning about the form LPP ought to take in a given society. DOI: 10.4324/9780429448843-3

35

Leigh Oakes

2  Key concepts and definitions In his original use of the term, Haugen (1959: 8) defined language planning as “the activity of preparing a normative orthography, grammar, and dictionary for the guidance of writers and speakers in a non-​homogeneous speech community”. Limited to interventions concerning the form of language (corpus planning), this definition was later extended to also include the functions of language (status planning; Kloss 1969), the learning of languages (acquisition planning; Cooper 1989), and even the creation of a favourable attitudinal environment for language planning itself ( prestige planning; Haarmann 1990a; see also Edwards, this volume). In its broadest sense, language planning thus refers to interventions that seek to modify somehow the linguistic behaviour or attitudes of a given speech community. More specifically, it is about what actors attempt to influence what behaviours of which people for what ends under what conditions by what means through what decision-​making process and with what effect (Cooper 1989: 98). First introduced by Jernudd and Neustupný (1987), and further promoted by Spolsky (2004, 2009) and Nekvapil (2006), the term language management has been offered as a replacement for language planning. Specifically, it has been suggested that ‘language planning’ be reserved for the particular concerns of those involved in the pioneer years of the field (see Section 3.1), while ‘language management’ be used to describe a broader range of interventions in language matters. Spolsky (2012: 5) attempts to justify the proposed distinction further by characterising language management measures “not as ‘plans’ but as ‘strategies’ –​ approaches that set values and direction but admit the continual need for modification to fit specific and changing situations”. Despite the efforts to develop a more nuanced terminology, the lack of conceptual clarity no doubt explains why most researchers continue to prefer the term ‘language planning’. Indeed, ‘language management’ may ultimately fall out of use, as has been the case with other synonyms for language planning, such as language engineering (Miller 1950) and language regulation (Gorman 1973). More theoretically useful is the distinction between language planning and language policy. While some view language policy as an outcome of language planning (e.g., Kaplan & Baldauf 1997: xi), the majority of researchers consider that policy precedes planning. Language policy thus “subsumes language planning” (Ricento 2000: 209); it represents the broader political and sociolinguistic goals in response to which concrete language-​planning measures are devised and implemented.2 It follows that while language planning is usually deliberate and explicit, language policy more broadly may be overt or covert, explicit or implicit in nature. Schiffman (1996: 5) explains that language policy is also grounded in linguistic culture, “the set of behaviours, assumptions, cultural forms, prejudices, folk belief systems, attitudes, stereotypes, ways of thinking about language, and religio-​historical circumstances associated with a particular language”. Some recent understandings go further in claiming that some of these phenomena constitute language policy itself. For example, Spolsky (2004: 5) proposes a tripartite model according to which a community’s language policy comprises three elements: its language practices; its language beliefs or ideology; and its language planning (or management). While one may prefer to maintain the distinction especially between top-​down policy and practice on the ground (see Section 3.3), this definition nonetheless draws attention to the interrelationship between these phenomena, and the need to also consider the grassroots level of policy implementation.

3  The development of the field Drawing broadly on Ricento (2000) and Johnson and Ricento (2013), the overview that follows provides an updated critical account of the main evolutionary phases of the field. It begins by 36

The historical development of language policy and planning

surveying the foundational work of the pioneer era, before reviewing two major paradigmatic shifts that the field has undergone since then: the critical and ethnographic turns. While the first of these may seem predominantly theoretical in nature and the second methodological, both shifts have in fact entailed profound theoretical and methodological reorientations that have brought the field a long way from its origins. The survey serves as a backdrop for the discussion in Section 4 of the challenge posed to current trends in the field by the question of normativity.

3.1  The pioneer years Responding to the consequences of decolonialisation in the developing world, early LPP research was optimistic and pragmatic in nature. It sought to actively guide newly independent states with the choices they faced for managing linguistic diversity. Language was considered as a resource with value which could be manipulated and exploited; like financial reserves or natural resources, it was therefore subject to planning by specialist technocrats (Ricento 2000; Lo Bianco 2004). The choices concerned, for example, the status to be granted to competing languages in various domains under state control (e.g., the workings of government, the judiciary, the education system). If local languages were to be promoted, this also entailed corpus planning, in so far as these languages would need to be standardised and elaborated so they could be used for all the functions required by the modern state. Conceived at the time as ‘language problems’, the reality is that the challenges did not relate to linguistic challenges per se so much as broader non-​linguistic preoccupations. These included economic development, education, political stability, and nation-​building. The “mushrooming of language planning” (Haugen 1966b: 9) as practice that emerged from the 1960s especially in the decolonised world prompted a proliferation of more general research into LPP over the following decade (e.g., Haugen 1966b; Fishman et al. 1968; Rubin & Jernudd 1971a; Fishman 1974a; Rubin et al. 1977). Informed by numerous case studies and sociolinguistic surveys (see, e.g., Fox 1975), it concerned itself with developing theoretical concepts (e.g., language shift, language maintenance, diglossia) and taxonomies (e.g., languages by function, states by degree of multilingualism), reflecting the background in structural linguistics of many of the scholars involved (Ricento 2000: 197–​198). It also sought to theorise language planning as a rational decision-​making process comprising different stages: data gathering; identification of problems; specification of goals; cost–​benefit analysis of alternatives; implementation; and evaluation. For example, Haugen’s (1966a) model of standardisation (see Edwards, this volume), expanded later into a broader model of language planning (Haugen 1983), focuses on four steps in the planning process: selection (the choice of a language or language variety); codification (the development of a writing system and the fixing of particular linguistic forms); implementation (the application of the measures); and elaboration (the ongoing cultivation of linguistic resources). With its ideas about the form that LPP practice ought to take, LPP research in the pioneer era did not sit well with the descriptive ambitions of modern linguistics. Nor was linguistics well suited to address LPP questions, “where judgment must be exercised in the form of choices among available linguistic forms” (Haugen 1959: 8). Linguists tend to look askance on normative linguistics, because it brings in an element which is not purely scientific. […] Linguistics as such is obviously not equipped to deal with these problems, which belong in the realm of social and political values. (Haugen 1959: 18) If early LPP research associated itself first and foremost with sociolinguistics (e.g., Fishman 1968a), this was no doubt because of the focus on the linguistic product rather than the more 37

Leigh Oakes

general process of social change (Rubin & Jernudd 1971b: xiv). In reality, LPP research in this era relied heavily on other disciplines in the social sciences (see Eastman 1983: 61–​104). Input from sociology and anthropology served to better understand the relationships between language, nationalism, and ethnicity. Educational sciences provided insight into literacy and second language acquisition, while economics offered cost–​benefit analysis techniques and rational choice models for weighing up alternatives. These disciplines provided the perceived scientific objectivity for addressing the unavoidable normative or value-​based judgements involved in making decisions about language. The overly optimistic positivism of the era, according to which science could control language and thus solve the ‘problem’ of linguistic diversity, is exemplified by Fishman (1968b: 60) when he observed that “[l]‌inguistically homogenous polities are usually economically more developed, educationally more advanced, politically more modernized, and ideologically-​ politically more tranquil and stable”. The ‘one nation, one language’ myth cultivated in the political imagination of nineteenth-​century national movements thus found itself an unfortunate new champion in the work of the LPP pioneers, whose overly rationalistic approaches tended to favour linguistic majorities at the expense of linguistic minorities.

3.2  The critical turn Within a couple of decades, the positivist approaches of the first wave of LPP research had begun to attract critical scrutiny, including amongst the pioneers themselves. Rubin (1983: 338), for example, criticised the overly rationalistic and technocratic approach to LPP, when “the very nature of language and social problems is different from that of problems of a more technical nature”. Drawing on the broader public planning literature, she classified ‘language problems’ as so-​called ‘wicked problems’ (Rittel & Webber 1973), difficult or impossible to ‘solve’ in any finite way. Not only are the cause and effect relationships more complex, but also there is no end to the causal chain, making it impossible to know if the goals have been achieved. ‘Solutions’ to LPP questions can never be objectively ‘right’, only sufficiently good or bad, and even then, only from a particular perspective. The rationalistic approaches of the pioneer years were also criticised for neglecting the ideological dimension of LPP. Noting that policy-​makers are frequently driven more by the interests of the dominant group than reason, Cobarrubias (1983: 80) recognised that “[t]‌he relationship between morality and rationality needs to be clarified”. He drew on broader philosophical principles to show that purely rational approaches to LPP do not necessarily make for morally optimal outcomes, such as in the case of linguistic assimilation or where the denial of linguistic recognition leads to social polarisation and ghettoisation (Cobarrubias 1983: 81). Such concerns for the power implications of LPP came to form the crux of the new critical approaches, which originated amongst educationalists. Influenced by the work of neo-​Marxist, post-​structuralist and critical theorists (e.g., Bourdieu, Foucault), these approaches challenged the dominant ideologies and normative assumptions behind LPP as previously conceived. They called for greater consideration of the broader socio-​structural contexts in which LPP was embedded, so as to enable “an exploration of the complex theoretical relationship between language, discourse, ideology and social organization” (Luke et al. 1990: 28). The critical turn was secured with the publication of Tollefson’s (1991) Planning Language, Planning Inequality. Like the title of his book, Tollefson’s definition of LPP clearly exemplified his view that LPP is an inherently hegemonic activity:

38

The historical development of language policy and planning

language 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) With his ‘historical-​structural’ approach—​now sometimes referred to simply as ‘critical language policy’ (Tollefson 2006)—​Tollefson drew attention to the broader factors underpinning LPP practice that both reflect and perpetuate the socio-​political and economic dominance of the ruling classes. Yet he was equally critical of what he termed ‘neoclassical’ (i.e., positivist) LPP research, which failed to consider questions of power and inequity when assessing the appropriateness of policies. Moreover, with their structuralist focus on categorisation, the LPP pioneers had unwittingly provided the conceptual tools to sustain hegemonic policies. Key notions like ‘standard’, ‘native speaker’, ‘linguistic competence’, and ‘diglossia’ were reinterpreted as ideological devices that served to confer symbolic power on dominant linguistic groups. Critical understandings of the role played by ideology in LPP have benefited greatly from research in anthropology (e.g., Woolard & Schieffelin 1994; Schieffelin et al. 1998). Defined as “the cultural (or subcultural) system of ideas about social and linguistic relationships, together with their loading of moral and political interests” (Irvine 1989: 255), language ideology is embedded and reproduced in multiple places, including in metalinguistic discourse and linguistic practice (Woolard 1998: 9). This explains why critical discourse analysis (e.g., Fairclough 1989; Wodak & Meyer 2001) has become a popular method for analysing LPP texts (e.g., laws, regulations, policy documents) and broader language ideological debates (e.g., Blackledge 2005; Barakos & Unger 2016), while other methods are used to examine ideologies embedded in covert mechanisms that enact LPP in day-​to-​ day life, for example in the linguistic landscape and in language tests (e.g., Shohamy 2006). With much of the critical research focused on educational settings, the field has experienced a shift away from sociolinguistics more broadly towards applied linguistics/​​educational linguistics specifically. Research on national contexts, including on bilingual education in the US (e.g., Cummins 1994; Wiley 1996), has also merged with a broader literature on language ecology and language rights in a world increasingly dominated by English (e.g., Skutnabb-​Kangas & Phillipson 1994; Phillipson & Skutnabb-​Kangas 1996; Phillipson 2003; May 2013). Proposing the notion of linguistic imperialism to account for the purportedly neo-​colonial ambitions of English language teaching (ELT) worldwide, Phillipson (1992: 47) claims that “the dominance of English is asserted and maintained by the establishment and continuous reconstitution of structural and cultural inequalities between English and other languages”. For him, linguistic imperialism is a type of linguicism, defined as “ideologies and structures which are used to legitimate, effectuate and reproduce an unequal division of power and resources (both material and nonmaterial) between groups which are defined on the basis of language (on the basis of their mother tongues)” (Skutnabb-​Kangas 1988: 13). While agreeing that English is associated with the inequitable forces of globalisation and neoliberalism (Phillipson 2008), others have taken a more postmodernist stance, stressing the multifarious nature of local experiences and the need to also consider “how English is used in diverse contexts or how it is appropriated and used in opposition to those that promote its spread” (Pennycook 1994: 57). On this view, rather than simply reflecting power structures that already exist at the macro-​societal level, language plays a much more active role in the exercise of power on the ground, reproducing inequalities but also challenging them

39

Leigh Oakes

(Canagarajah 1999: 40–​43). This shift in focus from the macro to the micro perspective, to more situated understandings of LPP, underpins the other major turn that the field has undergone since its inception.

3.3  The ethnographic turn At first glance, ethnography might be considered as antithetical to LPP, as conceived both by the pioneers and the critical scholars who followed. As Canagarajah (2006: 153) explains, “[w]‌hile LPP largely works in a top-​down fashion to shape the linguistic behavior of the community according to the imperatives of policy-​makers, ethnography develops grounded theories about language as it is practiced in localized contexts”. Ethnography thus focuses on the micro-​level of everyday experiences rather than the macro-​level of state institutions. It is also reluctant to engage with normative questions: “while LPP is about how things ‘ought to be’, ethnography is about what ‘is’ ” (Canagarajah 2006: 153). Precisely because of this apparent disconnect, there was growing recognition by the 1980s of the need to consider how the macro and micro levels interact, how top-​down policies are received and implemented on the ground. Building on an emerging tradition of ethnographic work in sociolinguistics (e.g., Hymes 1974), Hornberger (1988) evaluated the role of schools as agents for the revitalisation of Quechua in Peru. There followed a wave of ethnographic work on LPP questions, again focused primarily on educational settings (e.g., Davis 1994; Freeman 1998; Heller 1999; King 2001). Venturing beyond this particular domain, Jaffe (1999) provides another good example of the macro–​micro dialectic, revealing how ideologies of resistance amongst Corsican activists paradoxically work against policies aimed at ‘reversing language shift’ (Fishman 1991), by insisting on the purity of Corsican and reinforcing its diglossic relationship with French. With its focus on the grassroots level, ethnography has not only prompted the field to consider a much broader range of LPP actors, but has also served to foreground the local as an important locus of agency in LPP matters. In their discussion of policies related to ELT, Ricento and Hornberger (1996) use the metaphor of an onion to describe LPP as a multi-​layered construct. Forming the outer layers are the states traditionally perceived as the most important LPP actors; underneath these layers are the lower-​level institutions (e.g., schools, the media, occupational organisations, religious groups) through which state LPP is filtered; and at the core are the individuals or, in the case of ELT, the classroom practitioners, who interpret, negotiate, and enact LPP according to their individual backgrounds, experiences, and beliefs. Specifically, it is argued that teachers are not merely charged with putting top-​down imposed policies into practice; due to their position on the front line, they should instead be considered as “primary language policymakers” (Ricento & Hornberger 1996: 418), or at least as the “final arbiters of language policy implementation” (Menken & García 2010: 1). What has become known as the ‘ethnography of language policy’ thus represents a “means for exploring how varying local interpretations, implementations, negotiations, and perhaps resistance can pry open implementational and ideological spaces” (Hornberger & Johnson 2007: 511). It also offers a “methodological companion” (Johnson 2009: 143) for critical approaches to LPP, increasing the potential to realise their transformative ambitions through the study of “local practices which challenge dominant discourses, engender alternative discourses and radical practices, and potentially effect social change” (Johnson 2009: 155). In addition to such methodological innovations, the ethnographic turn in LPP research has also prompted profound theoretical transformations, beginning with the very definition of LPP itself. Considering the new emphasis on agency at the local level, there is now a tendency to view 40

The historical development of language policy and planning

practice as the new policy. Indeed, of the three components that make up his tripartite model, Spolsky (2004: 222) admits that “the real language policy of a community is more likely to be found in its practices than its management”. This shift in focus is not without its problems, leading some to ask “what isn’t language policy? How does this conceptualization of policy distinguish itself from other sociolinguistic terms already in existence, such as ‘discourse’ and ‘norms of interaction?’ ” (Hornberger & Johnson 2011: 285). The new emphasis on practice is also supported by postmodernist approaches. For example, Pennycook (2006: 64) draws on Foucault’s notion of ‘governmentality’ to argue that “power operates at the micro-​level of diverse practices, rather than in the macro-​regulations of the state”. This focus on fluid practices on the ground has other theoretical consequences for LPP research, not least because it also questions the ontological status of named languages, suggesting that “we no longer need to maintain the pernicious myth that languages exist” (Pennycook 2006: 67). If languages in the plural do not exist, then neither do the notions predicated on them which have traditionally been the focus of much LPP research. The concept of ‘language rights’, for example, has for this reason been rejected by some in favour of a broader understanding of communicative needs (Wee 2011). Conversely, the notion of ‘translanguaging’, promoted originally as a means of empowering learners to draw on all their linguistic resources in the language classroom (e.g., Baker 2001; Wiley & García 2016), has been appropriated by postmodernist trends as a new unbounded understanding of language use more broadly (known also as ‘languaging’ in this guise), which some argue would form the basis for more effective LPP (e.g., Makoni & Pennycook 2007: 36–​37). Likewise, the notion of ‘linguistic citizenship’ (Stroud 2001), which seeks to refocus attention on the diverse linguistic needs and experiences of individuals, has been proposed as a means of prioritising complex linguistic practices and grassroots agency in LPP (e.g., Lim et al. 2018; Chimbutane 2019).

4  Challenges, debates, and future perspectives The critical and ethnographic turns have undeniably allowed LPP to make important theoretical and methodological advances. Nonetheless, as LPP has matured as a field of academic inquiry with its own intellectual objectives and specialised vocabulary, it has arguably also drifted further away from the concerns of policy-​makers needing to make and justify choices about language. In order to help realise the transformative aspirations expressed especially by critical approaches to LPP, the field would do well to find ways to reconnect with these groups, to decrease not increase the gap between research and practice already noted in the pioneer years (e.g., Fishman 1974b: 15). The way forward lies perhaps not in a new turn so much as a return; or more specifically, a rediscovery of the field’s more pragmatic and outward-​looking origins. For example, it would benefit from overcoming the uneasy relationship that both the critical and ethnographic turns have with normative understandings about the form LPP practice should take in a given society. If the work of the LPP pioneers has been described as overly optimistic, critical approaches could conversely be described as excessively pessimistic. Indeed, in their problematisation of the hegemonic ideologies underpinning much LPP, many neo-​Marxist and post-​structuralist accounts “never seem to go beyond their critique as decisively or as productively as they state their critique” (Fishman 1994: 98). The opposite of positivism should not be negativism; critique is most useful when accompanied by constructive suggestions for practical ways forward. To the extent that critical approaches engage with normative questions, the concern is all too often about what should not be done rather than what should be done, the latter proving more difficult to establish (Peled 2015). They also frequently neglect to sufficiently interrogate their own normative assumptions, 41

Leigh Oakes

the need for a greater awareness of researcher positionality being a relatively recent concern (Lin 2015; Johnson 2017: 107–​108). The result sometimes amounts to a form of ‘cryptonormativism’ (relying predominantly on opaque, normatively loaded vocabulary to build an argument), a critique levelled by Habermas (1987: 282–​286) against Foucault, but which some claim is characteristic of much work in critical studies more generally (Heath 2018). As for ethnographic approaches to LPP, especially those of a more postmodernist disposition, these tend to be even more reluctant to engage positively with normative questions. The focus on local linguistic practice has usefully drawn attention to the complex, dynamic, and unbounded ways that language is used, especially in today’s globalised world characterised by a high degree of individual mobility. But to insist that language should only ever be considered as an unbounded entity is to deny the ways that it is also used normatively to construct and make sense of social realities. As Cameron (1995: 10) notes, “normativity is an inalienable part of using language”. Contemplating the role of sociolinguistics in debates about language, Laforest (1999: 281) also observes how “the sociolinguist’s knowledge is indeed derived from empirical research, but it is no less abstract for all that, and brings no solution to the problems language is inextricably tangled up in”. Even those who promote unbounded understandings of language are forced to admit that so-​called ‘zombie categories’ (Beck 2001)—​those modernist social constructs such as ‘national languages’ that masquerade as ‘regimes of truth’ (Foucault 1984) or “naturalized ways of understanding the world that help legitimate relations of power” (Heller 2011: 6)—​should not be so readily rejected in matters of social intervention, on account of the influence they continue to enjoy amongst ordinary users (Wee 2016). Even if one were to accept that the ‘real language policy’ is generated at the grassroots level, one cannot avoid the normative dimension of LPP at this level either, as reflected for example in individual language attitudes. Indeed, the second component in Spolsky’s tripartite model (ideologies/​attitudes) is not only a macro-​level phenomenon but a micro-​level one too. How ironic it would be if methodologies purporting to be ethnographic dismissed such emic understandings of language. In short, while linguistic practice may arguably form the central concern of (critical) sociolinguistics, the focus of LPP research must necessarily be broad enough to also encompass the normative functions of language. After all, conflicts of the type that have attracted the attention of much LPP research have their origins not in linguistic practice so much as in normative attitudes and representations concerning language: “language conflict is not a state of affairs where one linguistic system is in conflict with another system [but] results from contact settings whose conditions are controversially evaluated by people who are involved” (Haarman 1990b: 2–​3). Unlike researchers, language policy-​makers do not have the option of dismissing so readily normative views on language. At some point, cut-​and-​dried decisions need to be made about which languages should be used for various purposes, for the workings of government, in education, and for judicial systems, including provision for linguistic minorities. This necessarily involves the adoption of a more bounded understanding of language which does not sit easily with many critical or ethnographic approaches. As Petrovic (2015: 94) explains, “[a]‌n anti-​foundationalist view that is unwilling to name language renders policy-​making impossible beyond the very broad level of basic (private sphere, mainly) rights, providing little guidance in terms of policy beyond this”. For this reason, he describes such a view as “politically naïve”; a concept such as ‘linguistic citizenship’, for example, while theoretically compelling, is just not operationalisable from a policy perspective (Petrovic 2015: 95). Regarding similar concepts such as ‘languaging’, Grin (2018: 252) also notes how “practical language policy provides a form of validity check for these notions, not at the level of their intellectual value in abstracto, but at the level of their observable or potential

42

The historical development of language policy and planning

effects”. This no doubt explains why critical approaches have been deemed less successful in influencing language policy-​making (Lin 2015; Kubota & Miller 2017). For the next stage of its development, LPP research would thus benefit from a ‘rehabilitation’ of the notion of normativity in language matters, which would allow it to engage more readily with the practical aspects of policy-​making. Such an engagement would be particularly welcome considering that LPP matters play a key role in many contentious political debates around the world today (e.g., on immigration and integration). The field is well placed to take on this challenge, not least because of its long tradition of fostering links with disciplines which themselves have a natural connection to policy-​making. Indeed, political science and economics, upon which the pioneers of the field drew heavily, have in more recent years cultivated their own interest in LPP, with a particular grounding in empirical research (e.g., Schmidt 2000; Grin et al. 2010; Cardinal & Sonntag 2015; Gazzola & Wickström 2016). Likewise, political theory and political philosophy, not involved in LPP research from the outset but specialising in the normative aspects of public policy questions, have recently turned their attention to LPP, progressively adopting more contextualised approaches that appreciate the important identity functions of language (e.g., Kymlicka & Patten 2003; De Schutter 2007; Van Parijs 2011; Léger & Lewis 2017). While the dominance currently enjoyed by critical and ethnographic approaches has tended to leave little room for such contributions, there is some recognition that the field now “finds itself at a crossroads” (King 2019: 55). Will it continue down its current path of operating largely within separate disciplinary confines, where researchers give a passing multi-​disciplinary nod from time to time to those conducting LPP research in other disciplines? Or will it see its future in what some consider to be “the absolute necessity of interdisciplinary engagement if we are ever to address adequately these complex, contentious, and often contested issues around the politics of language” (May 2015: 52)? Judging from the growing body of LPP literature seeking to transcend disciplinary boundaries (e.g., May 2013; Ricento et al. 2015; Gazzola et al. 2018; Kraus & Grin 2018; Lane-​Mercer et al. 2018; Oakes & Peled 2018; Peled & Weinstock 2020), there is at least some desire to return to a more inclusive and pragmatic incarnation of the field, one which can capitalise fully on its collective strengths for the next chapter of its development.

Notes 1 Haugen (1965: 188) actually attributes the coining of the term language planning to Weinreich, who used it as a title of a seminar at Columbia University in 1957. 2 The perceived relationship between planning and policy is also reflected in publication titles. Baldauf and Kaplan’s ‘Language Planning and Policy’ book series contrasts with most publications, which either reverse the order of these concepts (e.g., Hult & Johnson 2015; Wright 2016) or refer only to the broader overarching notion of language policy (e.g., Spolsky 2004; Ricento 2006; Johnson 2013).

Further reading Johnson (2013) offers a good introduction to the field, especially on the use of critical/​​ethnographic approaches in educational settings. Ricento (2006) provides a more rounded overview of the many disciplines which have contributed to the development of LPP research, with a focus on both theory and method. Hult and Johnson (2015) cover a greater variety of contemporary methodologies, while May (2013) and Kraus and Grin (2018) offer more interdisciplinary treatments of the types of questions of interest to a broader range of LPP researchers.

43

Leigh Oakes

References Baggioni, Daniel (1997) Langues et nations en Europe. Paris: Éditions Payot. Baker, Colin (2001) Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Barakos, Elisabeth and Johann W. Unger (eds.) (2016) Discursive Approaches to Language Policy. London: Palgrave. Beck, Ulrich (2001) “Interview with Ulrich Beck”, Journal of Consumer Culture, vol. 1 (2), 261–​277, https://​ doi.org/​10.1177/​146​9540​5010​0100​209 Blackledge, Adrian (2005) Discourse and Power in a Multilingual World. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cameron, Deborah (1995) Verbal Hygiene: The Politics of Language. London: Routledge. Canagarajah, A. Suresh (1999) Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Canagarajah, A. Suresh (2006) “Ethnographic methods in language policy”, in Ricento, Thomas (ed.) An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method, 153–​169. Malden: Blackwell. Cardinal, Linda and Selma K. Sonntag (eds.) (2015) Language Regimes and State Traditions. Montreal: McGill-​ Queen’s University Press. Chimbutane, Feliciano (2019) “Micro language planning and agency in the context of bilingual education provision in Mozambique”, in Bouchard, Jeremie and Gregory P. Glasgow (eds.) Agency in Language Policy and Planning: Critical Inquiries, 77–​99. New York: Routledge. Cobarrubias, Juan (1983) “Ethical issues in status planning”, in Cobarrubias, Juan and Joshua A. Fishman (eds.) Progress in Language Planning: International Perspectives, 41–​85. Berlin: Mouton. Cooper, Robert L. (1989) Language Planning and Social Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cummins, Jim (1994) “The discourse of disinformation: the debate on bilingual education and language rights in the United States”, in Phillipson, Robert and Tove Skutnabb-​Kangas (eds.) Linguistic Human Rights: Overcoming Linguistic Discrimination, 159–​177. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Davis, Kathryn A. (1994) Language Planning in Multilingual Contexts: Policies, Communities, and Schools in Luxembourg. Amsterdam/​Philadelphia: John Benjamins. De Schutter, Helder (2007) “Language policy and political philosophy: on the emerging linguistic justice debate”, Language Problems and Language Planning, vol. 31 (1), 1–​23, https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​ lplp.31.1.02des. Eastman, Carol M. (1983) Language Planning: An Introduction. San Francisco: Chandler and Sharp. Fairclough, Norman (1989) Language and Power. London: Longman. Fishman, Joshua A. (1968a) “Sociolinguistics and the language problems of developing countries”, in Fishman, Joshua A., Charles A. Ferguson, and Jyotirindra Das Gupta (eds.) Language Problems of Developing Nations, 3–​16. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Fishman, Joshua A. (1968b) “Some contrasts between linguistically homogenous and linguistically heterogeneous polities”, in Fishman, Joshua A., Charles A. Ferguson, and Jyotirindra Das Gupta (eds.) Language Problems of Developing Nations, 53–​68. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Fishman, Joshua A. (ed.) (1974a) Advances in Language Planning. The Hague: Mouton. Fishman, Joshua A. (1974b) “Language planning and language planning research: the state of the art”, in Fishman, Joshua A. (ed.) Advances in Language Planning, 15–​33. The Hague: Mouton. Fishman, Joshua A. (1991) Reversing Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Fishman, Joshua A. (1994) “Critiques of language planning: a minority languages perspective”, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, vol. 15 (2-​3), 91–​99, https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​01434​ 632.1994.9994​559 Fishman, Joshua A., Charles A. Ferguson, and Jyotirindra Das Gupta (eds.) (1968) Language Problems of Developing Nations. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Foucault, Michel (1984) “Truth and power”, in Rabinow, Paul (ed.) The Foucault Reader, 51–​75. New York: Pantheon. Fox, Melvin J. (1975) Language and Development: A Retrospective Survey of Ford Foundation Language Projects 1952–​1974. 2 volumes. New York: Ford Foundation. Freeman, Rebecca D. (1998) Bilingual Education and Social Change. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Gazzola, Michele and Bengt-​Arne Wickström (eds.) (2016) The Economics of Language Policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

44

The historical development of language policy and planning Gazzola, Michele, Torsten Templin, and Bengt-​Arne Wickström (eds.) (2018) Language Policy and Linguistic Justice: Economic, Philosophical and Sociolinguistic Approaches. Cham: Springer. Gorman, Thomas P. (1973) “Language allocation and language planning in a developing nation”, in Rubin, Joan and Roger Shuy (eds.) Language Planning: Current Issues and Research, 72–​82. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Grin, François (2018) “On some fashionable terms in multilingualism research: critical assessment and implications for language policy”, in Kraus, Peter H. and François Grin (eds.) The Politics of Multilingualism: Europeanisation, Globalisation and Linguistic Governance, 247–​274. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Grin, François, Claudio Sfreddo, and François Vaillancourt (2010) The Economics of the Multilingual Workplace. London: Routledge. Haarmann, Harald (1990a) “Language planning in the light of a general theory of language: a methodological framework”, International Journal of the Sociology, vol. 86, 103–​126, https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​ ijsl.1990.86.103 Haarmann, Harald (1990b) “Elements of a theory of language conflict”, in Nelde, Peter H. (ed.) Language Attitudes and Language Conflict (Plurilingua IX), 1–​15. Bonn: Dümmler. Habermas, Jürgen (1987) The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Haugen, Einar (1959) “Planning for a standard language in modern Norway”, Anthropological Linguistics, vol. 1 (3), 8–​21. Haugen, Einar (1965) “Construction and reconstruction in language planning: Ivar Aasen’s grammar”, Word, vol. 21 (2), 188–​207, https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​00437​956.1965.11435​423 Haugen, Einar (1966a) “Dialect, language, nation”, American Anthropologist, vol. 68 (4), 922–​935, https://​ doi.org/​10.1525/​aa.1966.68.4.02a00​040 Haugen, Einar (1966b) Language Conflict and Language Planning: The Case of Modern Norwegian. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Haugen, Einar (1983) “The implementation of corpus planning: theory and practice”, in Cobarrubias, Juan and Joshua A. Fishman (eds.) Progress in Language Planning: International Perspectives, 269–​290. Berlin: Mouton. Heath, Joseph (2018) “The problem with ‘critical’ studies”, In Due Course, 26 January, http://​indu​ecou​rse.ca/​ the-​prob​lem-​with-​criti​cal-​stud​ies/​ Heller, Monica (1999) Linguistic Minorities and Modernity: A Sociolinguistic Ethnography. London: Longman. Heller, Monica (2011) Paths to Post-​ Nationalism: A Critical Ethnography of Language and Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hornberger, Nancy H. (1988) Bilingual Education and Language Maintenance: A Southern Peruvian Quechua Case. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hornberger, Nancy and David C. Johnson (2007) “Slicing the onion ethnographically: layers and spaces in multilingual language education policy and practice”, TESOL Quarterly, vol. 41 (3), 509–​532, https://​doi. org/​10.1002/​j.1545-​7249.2007.tb00​083.x Hornberger, Nancy and David C. Johnson (2011) “The ethnography of language policy”, in McCarty, Teresa L. (ed.) Ethnography and Language Policy, 273–​289. New York: Routledge. Hult, Francis M. and David C. Johnson (eds.) (2015) Research Methods in Language Policy and Planning: A Practical Guide. Malden: Wiley. Hymes, Dell (1974). Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Irvine, Judith T. (1989) “When talk isn’t cheap: language and political economy”, American Ethnologist, vol. 16 (2), 248–​267, https://​doi.org/​10.1525/​ae.1989.16.2.02a00​040 Jaffe, Alexandra M. (1999) Ideologies in Action: Language Politics on Corsica. Berlin: Mouton. Jernudd, Björn H. and Jiří V. Neustupný (1987) “Language planning: for whom?”, in Laforge, Lorne (ed.) Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Language Planning, 69–​84. Quebec: Les Presses de l’Université Laval. Johnson, David C. (2009) “Ethnography of language policy”, Language Policy, vol. 8 (2), 139–​159, https://​ doi.org/​10.1007/​s10​993-​009-​9136-​9 Johnson, David C. (2013) Language Policy. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Johnson, David C. (2017) “Critical ethnography of language policy: a semi-​confessional tale”, in Martin-​ Jones, Marilyn and Deirdre Martin (eds.) Researching Multilingualism: Critical and Ethnographic Approaches, 105–​120. London: Routledge.

45

Leigh Oakes Johnson, David C. and Thomas Ricento (2013) “Conceptual and theoretical perspectives in language planning and policy: situating the ethnography of language policy”, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, vol. 219, 7–​21, https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​ijsl-​2013-​0002 Kaplan, Robert B. and Richard B. Baldauf, Jr. (1997) Language Planning: From Practice to Theory. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. King, Kendall A. (2001) Language Revitalization Processes and Prospects: Quichua in the Ecuadorian Andes. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. King, Kendall A. (2019) “Language policy at a crossroads?”, Journal of Sociolinguistics, vol. 23 (1), 54–​64, https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​josl.12314 Kloss, Heinz (1969) Research Possibilities on Group Bilingualism: A Report. Quebec: International Center for Research on Bilingualism. Kraus, Peter and François Grin (eds.) (2018) The Politics of Multilingualism: Europeanisation, Globalisation and Linguistic Governance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Kubota, Ryuko and Elizabeth R. Miller (2017) “Re-​examining and re-​envisioning criticality in language studies: theories and praxis”, Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, vol. 14 (2–​3), 129–​157, https://​doi. org/​10.1080/​15427​587.2017.1290​500 Kymlicka, Will and Alan Patten (eds.) (2003) Language Rights and Political Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Laforest, Marty (1999) “Can a sociolinguist venture outside the university?”, Journal of Sociolinguistics, vol. 3 (2), 276–​282, https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​1467-​9481.00077 Lane-​Mercer, Gillian, Denise Merkle, and Jane Koustas (eds.) (2018) Minority Languages, National Languages and Official Language Policies. Montreal: McGill-​Queen’s University Press. Léger, Rémi and Huw Lewis (eds.) (2017) Normative Approaches to Language Policy and Planning. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, vol. 38 (7), Special Issue. Lim, Lisa, Christopher Stroud, and Lionel Wee (eds.) (2018) The Multilingual Citizen: Towards a Politics of Language for Agency and Change. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Lin, Angel M. Y. (2015) “Researcher positionality”, in Hult, Francis M. and David C. Johnson (eds.) Research Methods in Language Policy and Planning: A Practical Guide, 21–​32. Malden: Wiley. Lo Bianco, Joseph (2004) “Language planning as applied linguistics”, in Davies, Alan and Catherine Elder (eds.) Handbook of Applied Linguistics, 738–​762. Malden: Blackwell. Luke, Allan, Alec W. McHoul, and Jacob L. Mey (1990) “On the limits of language planning: class, state and power”, in Baldauf, Richard B. Jr and Allan Luke (eds.) Language Planning and Education in Australasia and the South Pacific, 25–​44. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Makoni, Sinfree and Alistair Pennycook (2007) “Disinventing and reconstituting languages”, in Makoni, Sinfree and Alistair Pennycook (eds.) Disinventing and Reconstituting Languages, 1–​41. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. May, Stephen (2013) Language and Minority Rights: Ethnicity, Nationalism and the Politics of Language. 2nd edition. London: Routledge. May, Stephen (2015) “Language policy and political theory” in Hult, Francis M. and David C. Johnson (eds.) Research Methods in Language Policy and Planning: A Practical Guide, 45–​55. Malden: Wiley. Menken, Kate and Ofelia García (2010) “Introduction”, in Menken, Kate and Ofelia García (eds.) Negotiating Language Education Policies: Educators as Policymakers, 1–​10. New York: Routledge. Miller, George A. (1950) “Language engineering”, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 22 (6), 720–​725, https://​doi.org/​10.1121/​1.1906​678 Nekvapil, Jiří (2006) “From language planning to language management”, Sociolinguistica, vol. 20, 92–​104, https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​978348​4604​841.92 Oakes, Leigh and Yael Peled (2018) Normative Language Policy: Ethics, Politics, Principles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Peled, Yael (2015) “Parity in the plural: language and complex equality”, Language Problems and Language Planning, vol. 39 (3), 282–​297, https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​lplp.39.3.05pel Peled, Yael and Daniel Weinstock (eds.) (2020) Language Ethics. Montreal: McGill-​Queen’s University Press. Pennycook, Alistair (1994) The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language. London/​ New York: Longman. Pennycook, Alistair (2006) “Postmodernism in language policy”, in Ricento, Thomas (ed.) An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method, 60–​76. Malden: Blackwell.

46

The historical development of language policy and planning Petrovic, John E. (2015) A Post-​Liberal Approach to Language Policy in Education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Phillipson, Robert (1992) Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Phillipson, Robert (2003) English-​Only Europe? Challenging Language Policy. London: Routledge. Phillipson, Robert (2008) “The linguistic imperialism of neoliberal empire”, Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, vol. 5 (1), 1–​43, https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​154275​8070​1696​886 Phillipson, Robert and Tove Skutnabb-​Kangas (1996) “English only worldwide or language ecology?”, TESOL Quarterly, vol. 30, 429–​452, https://​doi.org/​10.2307/​3587​692 Ricento, Thomas (2000) “Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning”, Journal of Sociolinguistics, vol. 4 (2), 196–​213, https://​doi.org/​10.1111/​1467-​9481.00111 Ricento, Thomas (ed.) (2006) An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method. Malden: Blackwell. Ricento, Thomas and Nancy Hornberger (1996) “Unpeeling the onion: language planning and policy and the ELT professional”, TESOL Quarterly, vol. 30 (3), 401–​427, https://​doi.org/​10.2307/​3587​691 Ricento, Thomas, Yael Peled, and Peter Ives (eds.) (2015) Language Policy and Political Theory: Building Bridges, Assessing Breaches. Cham: Springer. Rittel, Horst W. J. and Melvin M. Webber (1973) “Dilemmas in a general theory of planning”, Policy Sciences, vol. 4, 155–​169, https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​BF0​1405​730 Rubin, Joan (1983) “Evaluation status planning: what has the past decade accomplished?”, in Cobarrubias, Juan and Joshua A. Fishman (eds.) Progress in Language Planning: International Perspectives, 329–​343. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Rubin, Joan and Björn H. Jernudd (eds.) (1971a) Can Language Be Planned? Sociolinguistic Theory and Practice for Developing Nations. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. Rubin, Joan and Björn H. Jernudd (1971b) “Introduction: language planning as an element in modernization”, in Rubin, Joan and Björn H. Jernudd (eds.) Can Language Be Planned? Sociolinguistic Theory and Practice for Developing Nations, xiii–​xxiv. Honolulu: University of Hawai‘i Press. Rubin, Joan, Björn H. Jernudd, Jyotirindra Das Gupta, Joshua A. Fishman, and Charles A. Ferguson (eds.) (1977). Language Planning Processes. The Hague: Mouton Publishers. Schieffelin, Bambi B., Kathryn A. Woolard, and Paul V. Kroskrity (eds) (1998) Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. New York: Oxford University Press. Schiffman, Harold F. (1996) Linguistic Culture and Language Policy. London: Routledge. Schmidt, Ronald Sr. (2000) Language Policy and Identity Politics in the United States. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Shohamy, Elana (2006) Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. London: Routledge. Skutnabb-​Kangas, Tove (1988) “Multilingualism and the education of minority children”, in Skutnabb-​Kangas, Tove and Jim Cummins (eds.) Minority Education: From Shame to Struggle, 9–​44. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Skutnabb-​Kangas, Tove and Robert Phillipson (eds.) (1994) Linguistic Human Rights: Overcoming Linguistic Discrimination. Berlin: Mouton. Spolsky, Bernard (2004) Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Spolsky, Bernard (2009) Language Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Spolsky, Bernard (2012) “What is language policy?”, in Spolsky, Bernard (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy, 3–​15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Stroud, Christopher (2001) “African mother-​tongue programmes and the politics of language: linguistic citizenship versus linguistic human rights”, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, vol. 22 (4), 339–​355, https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​014346​3010​8666​440 Tollefson, James W. (1991) Planning Language, Planning Inequality: Language Policy in the Community. London: Longman. Tollefson, James W. (2006) “Critical theory in language policy”, in Ricento, Thomas (ed.) An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method, 42–​59. Malden: Blackwell. Van Parijs, Philippe (2011) Linguistic Justice for Europe and the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wee, Lionel (2011) Language without Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wee, Lionel (2016) “Are there zombies in language policy? Theoretical interventions and the continued vitality of (apparently) defunct concepts”, in Coupland, Nikolas (ed.) Sociolinguistics: Theoretical Debates, 331–​348. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wiley, Terrence (1996) Literacy and Language Diversity in the United States. Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics/​Delta Systems.

47

Leigh Oakes Wiley, Terrence and Ofelia García (2016) “Language policy and planning in language education: legacies, consequences, and possibilities”, Modern Language Journal, vol. 100 (S1), 48–​63, https://​doi.org/​ 10.1111/​modl.12303 Wodak, Ruth and Michael Meyer (eds.) (2001) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage. Woolard, Kathryn A. (1998) “Introduction: language ideology as a field of inquiry”, in Schieffelin, Bambi B., Kathryn A. Woolard, and Paul V. Kroskrity (eds.) Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory, 3–​47. New York: Oxford University Press. Woolard, Kathryn A. and Bambi B. Schieffelin (1994) “Language ideology”, Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 23, 55–​82, https://​doi.org/​10.1146/​annu​rev.an.23.100​194.000​415 Wright, Sue (2016) Language Policy and Language Planning: From Nationalism to Globalisation. 2nd edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

48

3 LANGUAGE POLICY AND PLANNING Terms of engagement John Edwards

1 Introduction Almost all of the generally important terms in sociolinguistics and other perspectives on what might be called the ‘social life of language’ feature in the more focussed treatments of language policy and planning (LPP). Many discussions, therefore, that make no mention of the topic in either title or keywords may prove to cover relevant ground. My opening observation, then, is that contributions to our understanding of LPP are widespread throughout the literature—​and that, more pointedly, many valuable treatments illustrative of lesser-​known perspectives on LPP may be lost to researchers who rarely stray from the narrow and obvious paths. In the foreword to their overview, still relevant after two decades, Kaplan and Baldauf (1997: x–​ xi) touched upon the same matter: the defining literature […] is scattered across books and journals in many fields. […] many key papers have appeared in volumes of edited work not always transparently related to language policy and planning. They mention the inconsistent terminology in the field, something we should of course expect when discussions arise in so many different quarters and often for quite different purposes. And when they write that “in the simplest sense, language planning is an attempt by someone to modify the linguistic behaviour of some community for some reason” (1997: 3) we are reminded again of the incredible breadth of possibility in understanding and investigating planning, to say nothing of implementation. In fact, we could enlarge on the authors’ point here by noting that their word ‘attempt’ implies a primary or free-​standing decision that may not always be present. Since language-​in-​use is inextricably bound up with other aspects of social life, actions affecting language may be consequences of broader interventions. There are instances in which language matters are never considered at all—​in which case an unintended linguistic effect would be a term more apt than ‘planning’—​but in which, nonetheless, language changes occur. An example DOI: 10.4324/9780429448843-4

49

John Edwards

might be the replacement of Celtic with Germanic varieties in England, following the arrival of the Anglo-​Saxons. (Even here, though, we cannot be sure that there were no formalised replacement efforts at work—​unlikely, perhaps, but not impossible.) More probable scenarios are those in which the effects of social change on language are considered, where some degree of planning is present, but where linguistic alteration is a by-​product of larger events. Consider the Indian Raj. Neither the original foundations in trade nor all of the subsequent imperialist expansions had any explicit linguistic component—​and yet language planning (including of course prescriptivism) became inevitable.1 Given such a range of possible causes and effects and taking into account the relative newness of the field as an academic sub-​discipline, it is entirely reasonable that the sub-​title of the Kaplan and Baldauf book puts practice before theory. As well, the fact that LPP has often been a response to practical social problems (actual or perceived) means that the obvious direction is indeed from practice to theory, at least initially. Kaplan and Baldauf deserve some credit for being upfront about this, when one considers the untimely rush to ‘theory’ that has bedevilled much of social-​ scientific enquiry. Scholars are generally not statesmen, and the results of their activities “prevail only to the extent that somebody has the power to make them prevail” and—​more bluntly still—​since language planning is undertaken by those who have the power to do so, it is “designed to serve and protect their interests” (thus Kedourie 1961: 125; Williams 1981: 221).2 This may be overly restrictive. It is true that LPP interventions imply some level of power, but it is not always true that they are meant to further the wishes of the practitioners, or solely of them. Those scholars who have produced dictionaries for island languages of the South Pacific, for instance, were surely not entirely self-​interested—​and readers will know of many other such examples; see Edwards (2004) and below. Nonetheless, it might well be argued that the emergence of a recognised field devoted to LPP has—​as with other apparently free-​standing social-​scientific exercises—​produced many disembodied and decontextualised treatments that will never leave the academic cloisters. Relatedly, the conceits of LPP ‘theory’ are, if anything, more fragile than those we find in other sociological areas, simply because “any disinterested theorising becomes compromised in practice […] Language planning is usually concerned with applications in highly controversial settings [… and] is inevitably coloured by ideological imperatives” (Edwards 2009: 227). Or, as Jones (2015a: xiii) has succinctly stated: “language policy and planning is where linguistics meets politics”. Language ecology has become an important topic in recent years. It has been energised by the rise of ‘global English’ and the threat which this poses to other languages, particularly minority varieties of low or, at least, delimited status. Apart from the intrinsic interest possessed by such varieties and the pressures bearing upon them, study of the dynamics of ‘small’ or threatened languages can throw into sharper relief elements that may be common to all varieties; see Jones (2015b) for a recent relevant collection. Unfortunately, a considerable amount of the relevant literature does not have the breadth that the word ‘ecology’ should imply—​rather, some of it has become the realm of scholar-​activists committed to the rejuvenation of flagging languages and to combatting the spread and the incursions of English (and of other ‘large’ languages, too, of course).3 Consequently, the LPP efforts that are described under the ecological rubric are not always disinterested ones.4 And, when one turns to the question of language ‘rights’—​which, it can be seen, must surely underpin much of this limited ecology—​one finds, again, undesirable restrictions of focus. In particular, many so-​called language rights are, in fact, ‘claims’—​not quite the same thing. On language ecology, see Edwards (2002, 2008) and, for specific reference to language rights, Edwards (2003, 2020a). 50

Language policy and planning: terms of engagement

In this introduction, I have touched upon several rather basic matters. First, LPP is an area that should necessarily take its practitioners beyond the groves of academe. As in other language fields, theory is both possible and desirable. Second, in one form or another, LPP has a very long history indeed. This means that scholars who wish to have the fullest grounding and, therefore, the greatest and most relevant applicability for their work will want to read widely. Third, the literature of LPP is very widespread, a fact that amplifies the need for extensive reading, across disciplinary borders, and with the ability to make and follow up on connections which may not always be explicit. A large literature also means, however, that virtually all of the necessary concepts are already to be found in broader sociolinguistic and sociology-​of-​language realms. Fourth, the instrumental or technical aspects of LPP—​while undoubtedly requiring much thought and skill—​ are always secondary to the social and political impulses which underpin them. Matters of identity in one form or another, then, are at the heart of the enterprise.

2  Key issues, concepts, and definitions As already mentioned, a great many of the terms in the wider sociolinguistic and sociology-​of-​ language literature can be relevant for studies and applications of language planning and policy. What follows here is a list of the most centrally recurring concepts. A note suggesting their importance for LPP is provided; this is accompanied, where necessary, by a brief definition. Many of the specifics here are underlined, in one way or another, by matters of perception, and sometimes—​where LPP is an unwanted or ill-​advised imposition, for instance—​by stereotype or prejudice. Furthermore, almost all examples of LPP, whether theoretical or applied, reflect and bear upon social identity. This is true even where languages are no longer widely spoken, where their significance is of symbolic value. Academies: most societies have (or have had) institutions with purposes that include the making of language policy. The members of academies, councils and other similar bodies are perforce language planners, even though they have often had no particular linguistic expertise. Indeed, academies are advisory bodies in most cases, and significant policy alterations are often the work of more focussed language boards, offices and councils. See also dictionaries, diversity, and the fuller discussions in Section 4. Acquisition planning: acquiring (or having acquired) a first language is normally an informal procedure, and subsequent languages may also be added to the repertoire without prescribed policy-​ and-​ planning initiatives. Often, however, the acquisition of languages beyond the maternal variety (or varieties, in some instances) involves some form of educational planning. See bilingual (or multilingual) education. Artificial (constructed) languages: although not of great concern in the general literature, the study of constructed languages (Esperanto is the example that most will have heard of) provides one of the clearest instances of attempts at formal planning—​attempts which begin, in fact, with the very creation of these varieties (see Fiedler, this volume). Attitudes: the classic definition of attitude involves three components—​affective, cognitive, and behavioural (see Fürst, this volume). One believes something, has some emotional reaction, and is then predisposed to act in a particular way. (The relationship of the ‘action’ element to the others is, however, often problematic.) Prejudices and stereotypes, often unpleasant or unfavourable, are common examples. While some LPP exercises try to reduce certain negative language attitudes and promote more enlightened views of linguistic diversity, all such exercises must take attitudes into account. Bidialectalism: just as one can be bilingual (or multilingual), so one can be fluent in more than one dialect. There is a long and virtually global history revealing that some dialects are viewed 51

John Edwards

more favourably than others, even though scholarship has shown quite conclusively that none can be seen as superior in any basic linguistic sense. LPP must concern itself with many varieties of bidialectalism, involving (for instance) standard and nonstandard varieties, regional variations, and group differences (across ethnic and social-​class lines). In classroom practice, to take one example, one dialect—​typically the ‘standard’ variety—​is emphasised; others are necessarily discouraged, sometimes actively. At the same time, policies may aim to remedy unsupported and potentially damaging linguistic attitudes. See also dialect, social class, and ethnicity and nationalism. Bilingual (or multilingual) education: the different types of bilingual education—​which vary by age of access, duration, and, of course, many important programmatic features—​ constitute a prime example of LPP intervention (see chapters by Colaiuda, Heugh, Lo Bianco, and Zanola, this volume). In many countries, bilingual or multilingual education is national policy. Beyond the initial planning for programme implementation, there are obvious decisions about the population to be catered to, the provision of appropriate teachers, and so on. It is also apparent that bilingual education for children who speak the majority language in their community (anglophone youngsters enrolled in Spanish-​English education in the United States, for example) is quite different from efforts to include the reinvigoration of a flagging or neglected ‘original’ variety (Irish-​language programmes for children in Ireland, for instance; see also below). Further complications immediately suggest themselves and must be taken into account in LPP exercises. If a programme is instituted for group A, why not one for group B? Which variety of the second language is to be chosen? Should Spanish education in the US focus on European or South American varieties? Which of the three major Irish dialects should find their way into the curriculum? Every choice made is another denied. Bilingualism and multilingualism: as noted in the previous entry, LPP is important in formal programmes of language-​repertoire expansion. Its impact is made clearer when we bear in mind the division of skills that is relevant to all languages—​listening, speaking, reading, and writing—​but which can be dealt with in a number of combinations. The measurement of bilingualism is often problematic, then, and is complicated by the use of a variety of methodological approaches, all of which reflect different planning perspectives and requirements. It is clear that the level of bilingual ability is a factor, as is the degree of ‘balance’ between (or among) language fluencies. LPP exercises also bear upon the relationship between two (or more) languages: is the intent to ultimately replace one language with another (subtractive bilingualism) or to expand the repertoire (additive bilingualism)? A final note here: recent work showing a possible positive correlation between bilingualism and several aspects of cognitive ability suggests even greater scope for careful application of planning policies, particularly at primary educational levels (see Sorace & Vernice, this volume). See also bilingual (or multilingual) education and plurilingualism. Code-​switching and code-​mixing: speakers can move from one part of their linguistic repertoire to another, according to their sense of the context and its requirements. The phenomenon is not restricted to bilingual or multilingual individuals, who can obviously move from one language to another. Virtually all speakers have access to different linguistic styles, levels of formality, dialects, slangs, and jargons—​and choices are always possible here and, indeed, often occur rather seamlessly. This switching behaviour is sometimes distinguished from code-​mixing, which refers more narrowly to the intermingling of different linguistic features (in the sense just listed) within a single utterance or, indeed, within a single sentence. See also domain. 52

Language policy and planning: terms of engagement

Community language: while every spoken language is of course a community language, the term typically applies to varieties spoken by smaller and ‘non-​mainstream’ groups within a larger society where another language is dominant: ethnic-​minority populations are obvious examples here. See also heritage language. Corpus planning: once a language variety has been identified for policy-​and-​planning attention, it must be formalised and standardised, usually by dealing with matters of orthography, grammar, spelling, lexicography (including dictionary-​making), and terminology development (where necessary). See also status planning and Section 3(a). Descriptivism: this represents a disinterested acceptance of language varieties as they are, without an attempt to classify them in terms of ‘better’ or ‘worse’, or to see them as more or less ‘correct’, or to try and detect intrinsic levels of prestige or status. See also prescriptivism and purism. Dialect: dialects are formally considered to be mutually intelligible varieties of the same language, differing in terms of accent (pronunciation), grammar, and vocabulary. Sometimes, however, political considerations—​which is to say, policy decisions—​make it necessary for dialects to be labelled languages. Norwegian and Danish, Hindi and Urdu, Serbian and Croatian—​these may be dialect pairs, but politics and concerns for national identity typically cast them otherwise. See also bidialectalism. Dictionaries: the making of dictionaries is an exercise in linguistic decision-​making. Lexicographers grapple with the inclusion or exclusion of words, the depth of definition provided, considerations of what is ephemeral or slang, and so on. Dictionary-​making is a form of corpus planning, and is particularly relevant where that planning reflects officially sanctioned language policy. See also academies, diversity, corpus planning, and the fuller discussions (below). Diglossia: while societal bilingualism may be a temporary state of affairs—​think of the language shift that often occurs across immigrant communities, where the third or fourth generation has moved to a new monolingualism—​diglossia (the literal meaning of which is simply synonymous with ‘bilingualism’) signifies a more enduring state of bilingual or bi-​dialectal co-​existence. The original sense characterised ‘higher’ or ‘lower’ forms of the same language: classical versus vernacular Arabic, for example. An extended use covers situations in which different languages play separate roles. In both forms, LPP can impose and reinforce conventions and formalise contexts of use. Diversity: there has always been an ebb and flow of language variation around the world; in some cases this is affected by institutional influences (by language academies or councils, for example); in others by great differences between ‘large’ languages and ‘smaller’ ones (that is to say, between more and less dominant or prestigious varieties). In the first case, the machinery of LPP is obvious; in the second, policy and planning directions may help to underpin the very ‘size’ of competing languages. Domain: this simply refers to a particular context in which a language (or languages) is used, and perhaps mandated—​and in which, therefore, choices may be made. Home and workplace, as well as educational and religious settings provide commonly-​discussed domains. See also code-​switching. Ecology: in its broadest sense, language ecology simply means the real-​life contexts—​for better or worse—​that affect the fortunes of languages in contact. From a narrower perspective, however, the intertwinings of languages have suggested, at least in some quarters, the need for intervention on behalf of the preservation of diversity in general, and of the protection of small or threatened languages. The application of LPP is then obvious. See also diversity, endangered languages, and the brief discussion in the introductory section, above. 53

John Edwards

Endangered languages: varieties seen to be threatened by more powerful competitors may suggest the application of protective measures (see Sánchez Avendaño, this volume). See also diversity, ecology, and minority language. Ethnicity and nationalism: the maintenance of language markers that help to define the borders of these two large-​scale examples of ‘groupness’ has always been seen as important (see Kraus, this volume). There is, in other words, a strong link between language and collective identity. Whether language maintenance is always an absolute cultural requirement for the continuity of ‘groupness’ is debatable, but it is clear that there are implications for LPP. See also Section 3. First language: this may refer to the first language one learns as a child, or to the language that comes most easily and most immediately to individuals in later life. See also home language and mother tongue. Gender: gendered language, sexist language, and the ‘performativity’ of sexual personas are all sites of identity politics, and are all susceptible to formal and programmatic declarations and activities. Heritage language: while it is clear that all languages are part of the heritage of their speakers, the term generally refers to the ancestral or common group language of speakers who are shifting, or have shifted, to another variety. Typical examples are indigenous or immigrant varieties that are being replaced or supplemented by ‘larger’ ones (see Gogolin & McMonagle, this volume, and Buzási, this volume). Heritage languages may of course be no longer spoken—​a common occurrence among second and subsequent generations of immigrants, for instance. See also community language. Home language: this is the language most often used at home, but the term is less simple than it first appears. Home language need not be anyone’s mother tongue, for instance, nor need it be the language used most often by every member of the family. Further, it need not be a static entity. See first language and mother tongue. Language change: variations in language are, of course, at the very heart of policy-​and-​planning exercises. They can be both internal and external, can arise from both historical and current social dynamics, and can exist on either (relatively) micro and macro levels. Differences over the centuries in written language are striking to anyone who compares the prose of Chaucer’s English with that of today. Equally obvious are regional and social-​class variants, as are those that occupy different places on the continuum of language formality. Small variations within broadly similar language communities can lead to larger ones, even to levels of mutual unintelligibility: the Romance languages emerged from vulgar Latin, and both the Great Vowel Shift in English—​a gradual evolution that occurred in England between the fourteenth and sixteenth centuries—​and the Northern Cities Vowel Shift in US English are examples of subtle alterations that, over time, become marked; see also Section 4(d). In some instances, change arises when communities are, or become, isolated from one another; in others, they may be driven by desires—​conscious or not—​to erect some boundaries to linguistic identity. For present purposes, it is useful to distinguish between changes that arise without formal or deliberate planning, and those that do (see also Templin and Wickström, this volume). See also Sections 3(b) and 4(d). Language contact: two or more varieties may come into contact with each other, either geographically or socially. While outright conflict is not necessarily to be expected—​although it does of course occur where dominant groups threaten to conquer and/​or assimilate weaker ones—​ linguistic pressures and tendencies are often produced. These may include bilingualism, a continuum of connected dialect variants across and beyond border areas, different varieties of code-​switching, various types of cross-​language borrowings and transfers (of vocabulary, most notably), language shift, and so on. 54

Language policy and planning: terms of engagement

Language rights: if, as is now quite often maintained, speakers of languages—​particularly those of subordinate or ‘at-​risk’ status—​possess actual rights pertaining to the use and the recognition of their mother tongues, then active LPP intervention on their behalf is warranted when such rights are denied or ignored (see Medda-​Windischer & Constantin, this volume). Where language ‘rights’ are better understood as unlegislated claims, policy activities may play at least a fact-​gathering role in attempts to secure some official imprimatur. It is important to note that—​beyond rights that have legal status, and beyond claims that aim to achieve that status—​ the academic field usually called ‘linguistic human rights’ (LHR) involves a much looser and broader conception of the matter, often underpinned by a quite particular parti pris. See also diversity and endangered languages. Language maintenance, shift, and revival: in line with the implications of the other entries here, it is clear that formal efforts are typically pressed into service when less dominant varieties are to be supported, when unwanted pressures to shift from one language to another are to be resisted, and when moribund languages are to be rejuvenated (see Ó Curnáin & Ó Giollagáin, this volume). See also modernisation. Language spread: indigenous varieties may be forced to co-​exist with stronger ‘mainstream’ ones, whether these come from within or without the larger political unit. Immigrants spread languages, and sometimes—​as with imperialist and colonial expansion—​it is unnecessary for many people to physically move; their languages may make their presence felt through military, religious, or economic force. Some cultures have had more explicit policies for spreading their languages than have others, but all imperial powers have, directly or indirectly, made their languages attractive and sometimes necessary to conquered or colonised groups (see Wolff, this volume). ‘Big’ languages often retain pragmatic advantages and cultural prestige long after the context of their original imposition has disappeared (see McEntee-​Atalianis, this volume). Languages also spread as a result of political union among different communities, as in Switzerland, Belgium, and Canada (not always completely harmoniously, of course). Languages spread in and around geopolitical border areas, too. And language spread can also arise from cultural and educational desires and requirements. Languaging and translanguaging: readers are, unfortunately, more and more likely to encounter these ugly and unnecessary neologisms. Languaging means, above all, the practice in which the language ‘output’ is different from that ‘input’—​for example, when a student reads or hears in one language but produces something in another (typically his or her most fluent variety). The word ‘translanguaging’ means more or less the same thing. Their common feature involves the obvious utility of being able to draw upon a stronger language when replying or responding to one’s weaker one—​and so is merely a tedious restatement of a type of code-​switching. Linguistic imperialism: this term reflects linguistic dominance, and where some see language inequalities as more or less natural consequences of sociopolitical ones, others argue that differences are actively maintained through quite definite application of particular institutional policies and practices. Concern with linguistic imperialism has been significantly heightened with the global spread and influence of English. See also diversity and ecology. Linguistic landscape: the appearance of different languages on public signage, advertisements and so on is generally not random. Planning is at work here, if only by shopkeepers sensitive to the linguistic capabilities of potential customers. Official signs and directions must also attend to such capabilities, and here the policy is at a more general level. In some cases, planning does more than cater to immediate requirements: it may reflect an obvious linguistic policy (see van der Jeught, this volume). In any event, it is clear that the scope of the linguistic landscape is very broad. It can represent a spectrum of initiatives ranging from the official or legislated to 55

John Edwards

the entirely unofficial (and, indeed, individual), and its rationales can range from commercial decisions to important prescriptions and directions concerning health and safety. Literacy: to be literate is to be able to read and write. (I prescind, of course, from what are non-​ linguistic uses of the term: computer literacy, cultural literacy, artistic literacy, and others.) It is relevant here because many planning-​and-​policy exercises include the provision of materials—​ orthographies, grammars, dictionaries, and so on—​that facilitate or, indeed, permit literacy (see Heugh, this volume; Lo Bianco, this volume). It is often part of modernisation. Majority language: obviously, the language spoken by the greatest number is a majority language. More interesting are varieties that have a social or political ‘majority’. Numbers, then, can be of much less import than matters of dominance and power. See also minority language. Minority language: as with a majority language, simple numerical counts can be of much less significance than constraints of authority and political power when considering ‘minority’ status. For obvious reasons, of course, small speech-​community numbers are—​or historically have been, in language-​contact terms—​a contributing factor in producing subaltern status (see Ó Curnáin & Ó Giollagáin, this volume; McGonagle & Moring, this volume). See also endangered language. Modernisation: as part of maintenance and revival efforts, language planners may be involved in the updating of languages, particularly ‘smaller’ ones and, more particularly still, ones that have traditionally been only oral in nature and which are seen to stand in need of written forms. Orthographies may need to be created or amended, new vocabulary introduced, terminology developed and so on. See also Section 3(a). Mother tongue: as with first language, this term is not always straightforward, but it commonly means the language learned at the parental knee. It is possible to have two (or more) mother tongues if one is brought up bilingually (or multilingually) from birth. National language: this is the language endorsed, typically constitutionally, as the primary language of a sovereign state or region; in some federated states, there may be more than one. It may or not be the (or an) official language, and may have symbolic or identity status without being of widespread use. Native speaker: everyone is a native speaker (sometimes of more than one language: see mother tongue), but the term often occurs where revival or maintenance efforts are a concern. Since a renewed monolingualism is rarely likely (or desirable) among ‘small’ language communities, bilingualism involving the ancestral variety and some ‘bigger’ one is more realistic. Where non-​native speakers of the ‘smaller’ language may acquire it, their (so-​called ‘secondary’) bilingualism is not seen to be as useful or dependable in a long-​term revivalist sense as is the (‘primary’) bilingualism possessed by those who continue as native speakers of that ‘small’ variety. See also new speakers. New speakers: the production of ‘new speakers’ refers to the growth of bilingualism, usually in connection with efforts at language revival or revitalisation. It warrants particular notice here, then, as many settings reveal a marked and continuing decline in ‘native speakers’ and so-​called ‘primary bilinguals’, a decline which some see as being significantly offset by increases in ‘secondary’ bilingualism (see Ó Curnáin & Ó Giollagáin, this volume). See also native speaker. Official language: whereas a national language is always, in some sense or other, also official—​ legal and recognised—​the reverse need not hold. The former may have become largely ceremonial, and not widely used. As well, there may be more than one official variety, with usage differing across geographical regions or administrative/​functional domains (see Léger, this volume; Stojanović, this volume). ‘Plain language’: in many bureaucratic and professional contexts, language use is highly specialised, not to say impenetrable to the lay person. There have arisen, then, various campaigns advocating simple and straightforward language (usually in its written form). 56

Language policy and planning: terms of engagement

Plurilingualism: it has been suggested that this term be used to apply to the extended competence of individuals, and that multilingualism refer to the collective within a given region. In practice, readers will find that the latter term predominates across the board. See also bilingualism and multilingualism. Prescriptivism and purism: the idea that one language variety is better, or more appropriate—​ in some or all settings—​than another can lead to efforts to prescribe its use. These are often successful in social institutions and contexts in which there exist strong feelings about the intrinsic superiority, on ‘logical’ or aesthetic grounds, of some variants. Differences among social-​class dialects provide the usual fuel for prescriptive judgements. Purism is of course a prescriptivist stance, but involves the more specific aim of protecting and preserving given varieties from unwanted internal or, more commonly, external linguistic influences. Status planning: the selection of a language variety for planning-​and-​policy attention is also the initial step in working to improve or increase its status vis-​à-​vis other varieties. Unlike efforts made with the language itself (see corpus planning), the impetus here is a social and political one, usually with official or legal support. See also Section 3(a).

3  Foundation, continuities, and developments 3(a)  From the initial framework The first imperative here is to expand upon the observation made by Kaplan and Baldauf, as noted above, about LPP in its ‘simplest sense’. In a seminal article, Haugen (1966) described a model meant to “suggest the path that ‘underdeveloped’ languages must take to become adequate instruments for a modern nation” (931), or to help formalise “the step from ‘dialect’ to ‘language’, from vernacular to standard” (933). While the phrasing is no longer comme il faut, the model has endured.5 It has four basic stages, which occur in this order: selection, codification, implementation, and elaboration. The first and third are now often put under the rubric of ‘status planning’, while the second and fourth comprise ‘corpus planning’. It can be seen that status planning is a social exercise, extra-​linguistic in nature, while corpus planning deals directly with language itself. Here is the little two-​by-​two table—​“a matrix within which it should be possible to discuss all the major problems of language and dialect in the life of a nation” (933)—​with which Haugen ends his article (read ‘implementation’ for ‘acceptance’):

Society Language

Form

Function6

Selection Codification

Acceptance Elaboration

3(a)(i). A linguistic issue arises, such that a selection has to be made between or among varieties. Obvious examples arise where some languages are to be given official or national status in countries or regions—​and where others, of course, are not. 3(a)(ii). Following selection, standardisation or codification can provide a written form, or perhaps regularise grammar, orthography, and lexicon. Complications are easily imagined. In formalising Irish to create a caighdeán oifigiúil, an ‘official standard’ for the written language, it was deemed important, on both pedagogical and political grounds, to include elements from the three main regional dialects. A reasonable compromise in some eyes was seen as an artificial

57

John Edwards

concoction in others; see Ó Laoire (2005). This example shows that selection and codification can often occur more or less simultaneously. 3(a)(iii). The third stage, implementation, involves the promulgation of the now-​standardised choice through various channels, and it is here that educational systems are often turned to as the most appropriate agencies; see also the discussion of revival efforts (below). Various evaluation procedures are often employed at this stage to monitor the degree of acceptance of the chosen form (see Di Paolo, this volume, and McCarty & Halle-​Erby, this volume). 3(a)(iv). Finally, elaboration means keeping the language viable in a changing world; obvious necessities here include lexical modernisation and expansion, but changing sociopolitical exigencies may also require reworkings; see the discussion of Serbo-​Croatian (below). While Haugen’s four-​part approach has been modified and adapted over the last half-​century, the essence remains sound, simply because it clearly formalises the obvious stages of virtually all LPP undertakings.7 This is not to say, of course, that important subdivisions are not needed in some circumstances, nor that simplicity on paper translates neatly to the field—​nor, indeed, that useful nuances have not arisen: recent developments in ‘language management’ are an example here (see Spolsky 2004, 2009; Edwards 2012; Nekvapil & Sherman 2015; Kimura & Fairbrother 2020).

3(b)  Power, status, and ethnonationalist allegiances Settings in which allegiances and identities are important often involve planning and/​or policy matters, particularly where there are differences in linguistic power and status. We recall here the well-​known phrase associated with Weinreich (1945: 7): “a language is a dialect that has an army and navy”. Less well-​known is the observation made about Gronings (a general name for the Dutch Frisian dialects): it is ‘een taal di pech heeft gehad’ (a language that has been unlucky); see Kok (2001). I have already touched upon the political requirement that dialects be given the status of languages, and a classic example of an actual change in that status was provided by Wolff (1959). Among the Urhobo dialects of Nigeria, mutual intelligibility was generally considered quite high until Isoko speakers began to claim that their ‘language’ was different from the rest, a claim coinciding with their demands for increased political autonomy. Speakers of the linguistically very close Okpe dialect were not making such nationalistic claims and, for them, reciprocal intelligibility remained unchanged. A poignant modern example of LPP in action—​one in which nationalist impulses attempt to triumph over communicative efficiency—​is found in the Balkans. Serbo-​Croatian was a common variety, shared among Bosnians and Montenegrins, as well as Serbs and Croats. With the fracturing of Yugoslavia and the subsequent (re)emergence of strong internal ethnic forces and rivalries, the importance of language as boundary marker has come to the fore. Moves to emphasise Arabic-​Turkish features have occurred in Bosnia and, in Croatia, various nationalist declarations have been accompanied by “a campaign to actually make the language as different from Serbian (or Serbo-​Croatian) as possible, and as quickly as possible” (Bugarski 2001: 84).

4  Themes and selected applications 4(a)  Academies and dictionaries Many of the LPP exercises that are aimed to maintain group boundaries at national or state levels involve large-​scale efforts underwritten by central authorities. Here we find the work of national academies and language councils, the production of reference books of various types, and official 58

Language policy and planning: terms of engagement

pronouncements. In all of these, prescriptivism and purism usually figure quite prominently. The most well-​known academy is of course the Académie française, whose members were originally charged with maintaining the clarity, dignity, and status of French. While academicians have hardly ever been linguists, the very existence of an academy reveals something of national will and intent in the protection of the linguistic components of group identity. Notwithstanding the presence and the influence of the British Council—​and it has counterparts in many other countries, most of which also have (or had) institutions devoted to national language and culture—​neither Britain nor America has had a formal academy. In both states, the work of important lexicographers provided guidance regarding usage and perceived correctness. Thus, Samuel Johnson in England and Noah Webster in America were language planners, acting in effect as one-​man academies. The latter is particularly interesting, as his dictionary (1828) encouraged linguistic innovation in the service of an eventual new variety for his new country. In any event, the efforts of both men—​and, indeed, in all the undertakings of lexicographers ever since—​conscious planning is inevitable, as is inevitable tension between prescriptivism and descriptivism. Descriptions achieve some degree of authority when printed in a dictionary or other reference work, and thus move towards prescriptions. Every choice made, every entry planned and included, is another denied or excluded. Ayres-​Bennett (2020) is surely correct, then, when she suggests a continuum linking descriptivism and prescriptivism. The work of lexicographers—​as well as that of others employed in giving shape to vocabularies, alphabets, and orthographies—​operates in the service of identity in symbolic as well as instrumental ways. That is, the very presence of dictionaries and writing systems for societies that previously lacked them can provide a meaningful contribution to a sense of ethnic or national groupness. In the Solomon Islands archipelago, dictionary production for Lavukaleve was well received and was seen as a tangible proof of linguistic validity, particularly since the islanders were aware that neighbouring speech communities also had a dictionary; see Edwards (2004). As Terrill (2002: 215) pointed out, the value of such a professionally-​produced dictionary “has less to do with its content, and more to do with its very existence”—​and the bigger the better. Her observation that “written materials have an emblematic function far beyond their intrinsic content” (216) is entirely in line with my arguments here about the powerful nexus which unites planning with group identity.

4(b)  Popular prescriptivism and guides to usage Desires for linguistic standards and ‘accuracy’ are expressed and reinforced in the work of academicians and lexicographers, but they are also revealed in the perennially popular usage guides—​which date at least to the dawn of the modern era—​most of which were and continue to be directed internally, advising readers against ‘incorrect’ grammar and vocabulary, horrific provincialisms, slang, inappropriate or unnecessary foreign borrowings, and so on. In providing several examples from eighteenth-​century France, Kibbee (2009) shows that the most general impulse in writers of usage manuals had become a desire for standardisation, with an accompanying sense that regionalisms are threats to linguistic unity and (of course) ‘correctness’. And if anglophone countries did without state-​sponsored academies, they too were not short of advisory material. Fowler’s famous guide to modern usage first appeared in 1926; it was accompanied a few years later by Horwill’s (1935) production for the American market. Tieken-​Boon van Ostade (2009; see also her edited collection, 2018) discusses handbooks and other guides to usage, referring to their unflagging popularity and, as well, to the varieties of ‘depth’ on offer. Indeed, the serious undertakings of Fowler and others have been matched more 59

John Edwards

recently by the altogether lighter and more ‘personal’ treatments of Aitchison (2013), Amis (1997), Bryson (1990), and Winchester (1998). Whatever the level of intellectual rigour, however, all such efforts have linguistic axes to grind and, to that extent, can be considered as attempts at LPP.

4(c)  LPP and education: bilingual, immersion, and revivalist The list of terms already provided makes clear the obvious nature of policy and planning initiatives in educational settings. It is worth reiterating, however, that in all educational contexts, across all subjects, LPP is at work. This is simply a specific instance of the general observation that there are no value-​free contexts in human interaction. In all classrooms, for example, particular languages and dialects are sanctioned, and there are rules guiding both writing and oral expression. The history of bilingual education programmes for anglophone children in America (and to a lesser extent in Britain and other predominantly English-​speaking countries) provides an example of some attendant complexities and, in particular, of criticism arising from two quite different constituencies. There are those who feel that any social and linguistic deviation from mainstream or majority-​group norms is balkanising, and discourages beneficial assimilation and national unity. While some in this camp may grudgingly accept that early mother-​tongue instruction may help to reduce learning lags, they believe that such instruction should cease when some level (what level, and how assessed?) in the majority-​group language has been reached. Others argue that focussing exclusively on that mainstream language from the earliest grades or forms must necessarily expedite fluency in it, and that what others have regarded as a linguistic sink-​or-​swim approach—​ though painful—​is necessary. The second broad constituency here is that which criticises bilingual education for not being thoroughgoing or long-​lasting enough, for not attending rigorously or meaningfully enough to “cultural retention, encouragement of a pluralist society, or improvement of native languages” (Venezky 1981: 201). It goes without saying that there are strong ideological differences among those who argue against bilingual programmes tout court, those who support some ‘transitional’ arrangements, and those who argue for ‘maintenance’ programmes—​for curricula which aim to contribute to an enduring bilingualism, to the expansion of the linguistic repertoire, or to the support of ‘smaller’ or threatened or low-​status languages.8 Language immersion programmes have been described by Baker and Wright (2021) as one of the ‘strong’ varieties of bilingual education, although in the most rigorous examples there is little if any bilingualism in the classroom. In the ideal immersion experience, children are dipped into a new linguistic pool and come to the surface with original capacities intact and linguistic fluencies expanded. Immersion programmes are generally voluntary, and parental commitment is usually matched by that of teachers; these facts alone suggest a better educational experience. Benefits to individuals are meant to contribute to ongoing societal bilingualism—​in the Canadian context, for instance, the erosion of the ‘two solitudes’ of French and English. Two facts are immediately obvious. The first is that the presence of immersion is a powerful reminder of quite specific LPP at work. The second is that immersion is quite unlike some sink-​or-​swim ‘submersion’ in an unknown or little-​known variety—​where children, often from poor or illiterate or minority-​group families, enter classrooms where a ‘mainstream’ language prevails, and where no place is made for their maternal language. Schools are generally agents or arms of some mainstream society, and virtually all of their practices bring LPP to bear, directly or indirectly, upon children. In some policy contexts, however, their primary instructional role is seen to be significantly accompanied by language revitalisation efforts. The Irish context is instructive here, where officially-​endorsed revival was generally seen as the province of education: if English schools had killed the language, then Irish ones could 60

Language policy and planning: terms of engagement

bring it back. It has become entirely obvious that the school, when acting in virtual isolation, cannot bring about the return of a weakened vernacular in the face of increasingly strong linguistic counter-​currents flowing outside its gates. Its very failures, however, are instructive when considering LPP interventions.

4(d)  Recurring themes: language change with and without formal LPP Before the brief summary notes that follow in the final section here, it is appropriate to provide some examples of the important features that recur in the dynamics of language change. These dynamics may or may not involve LPP initiatives, so it is worth considering in what circumstances these formal efforts emerge and—​where they do—​to highlight some of the relative successes and failures of those initiatives. The vast amount of historical language change has of course occurred without any formal planning at all. I mentioned above the replacement of Celtic with Anglo-​Saxon speech in Britain, and the next great influence on change—​invasion by the Norman French—​was also unplanned. In the Great Vowel Shift (see above) the long vowels ‘moved’: time once sounded like teem, house like hoose. A much later but similar change was observed by Labov (1972) in the speech patterns of Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts. One striking example was the emergence of pronunciations like loight for light, or soight for sight. Although the reasons for these sorts of changes are not always clear, population mobility usually has some role to play. In the Early Modern English example, the influx of regional accents in and around London may have been important; in the American case, Labov suggests that change reflected the desires of islanders to distinguish themselves from ever-​increasing numbers of summer visitors. Forty years after Labov recorded his observations, Blake and Josey (2003) found that the changes he documented were evaporating—​ because the patterns of interaction between islanders and mainlanders were themselves changing. It is noteworthy that at least one of the drivers of language change is evidently the wish to maintain group-​identity boundaries. Social and geographical mobility is also responsible for larger-​scale, unplanned change. The forces that serve to retard or discourage change include strict divisions of class and ethnicity, such that social movement is severely impeded, as well as physical isolation. The Gaelic-​speaking community on Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia, remained strong and united, until movement to the ‘Boston States’—​and engagement with the wider world of English speakers—​became both easy and desirable in the mid-​nineteenth century. This, in microcosm, is but an example of the processes of language change that come to affect virtually all emigrants. Language change often comes about, then, as a consequence of other changes that are, themselves, matters of either social and political policy, or individual and group motivations: policy, where initiatives like imperial expansion are concerned; motivations, where populations make geographical and or social moves in the hopes of brighter futures. Many of the examples I have already touched upon in this chapter, however, involve formalised attempts at change—​or, indeed, the reverse: efforts to resist change, to preserve and ‘protect’ certain patterns and usages. These include the work of lexicographers and orthographers, of academies and language councils, and of less official linguistic arbiters. A recurring difficulty has to do with both the provenance of, and the force behind, attempts at linguistic formulation or change. As noted already, language planning is generally undertaken by those who have the power to do so—​and an obvious corollary is that not all the intended beneficiaries (and interested third parties) may approve. Attempts to implement bilingual education programmes in the United States provide a good case in point, and nicely illustrate the intertwining of language with sociopolitical dynamics. The idea that teaching Spanish (to cite 61

John Edwards

the most important example) might undermine some basic American anglo-​culture, might obstruct assimilation into a notionally homogeneous society, always had strong appeal in some quarters. Leveen (2021) summarises the successful efforts that led, in 1998, to the essential banning of bilingual education in California, a restriction that remained in place for almost two decades. It might be said that this California example highlights two successful LPP actions, even though they ran counter to one another. Academic and pedagogical opinion seemed more influential in the second, but it is arguable that this lifting of the previous restrictive policy was essentially due to a more generally informed public. In any event, it is clear that, where large-​scale LPP efforts succeed, they build upon powerful non-​linguistic social forces and currents of opinion. Thus, legislation in Quebec to strengthen the position of French in the province in the face of perceived English incursion has proved broadly successful. The ‘revival’ of Hebrew as a vernacular in Israel succeeded because it united different Jewish communities, it already had an historically long-​ standing presence throughout all those communities, and (unlike Yiddish), it had no undesirable recent resonances. The attempted revival of Irish, on the other hand, has not fared as well. It has had some limited success, to be sure, but it was never likely to replace English as the vernacular—​ the effort came too late for that to happen, arriving at a time when the great majority of people had already become monolingual English speakers. Even the more modest aim of establishing a more or less permanent and widespread Irish-​English bilingualism is hampered by the existing power and obvious utility of English, and by the ever-​dwindling numbers of native Irish speakers. Hence the most recent efforts, in LPP circles, to encourage ‘new’ speakers of Irish, ‘secondary bilinguals’ as they are sometimes termed.

5  A brief final perspective This chapter has provided a rather succinct overview of the elements of LPP, most of which are suitably fleshed out in the other contributions to this handbook. Although these elements are many and varied, and although applications of LPP are widespread and multi-​faceted, I hope to have shown here that ideological motivations and concerns for group identity are at the core in virtually all cases. There are many examples of what may seem to be straightforward instrumental activities. Orthographical refinements and the construction of writing systems for societies that lack them, for instance, are exercises in which—​though obviously requiring much dedicated expertise—​the underlying impetus is apparently a very simple one. Sequoyah’s creation of a Cherokee syllabary in the early nineteenth century is a case in point (Bender 2002). What could be more obvious and less burdened with implicit baggage than the wish to facilitate reading and writing? Two points, however, are worth bearing in mind. ‘Selection’, Haugen’s classic initial step, does not arise ex nihilo. A germinal idea is needed, and this presupposes some concern for the intended beneficiaries, or perhaps for some constituency outside the group. LPP implementations, after all, may not always be founded on disinterested motives, and may in some cases expedite exploitation. This leads to a related point. It has been argued (not by me) that promoting reading and writing may have “intrusive qualities, championing literacy over orality, and imposing foreign (i.e. western) values and methods upon small cultures” (Edwards 2009: 235), and that a Trojan Horse may be created in which powerful external linguistic and cultural pressures may more easily be brought to bear upon such cultures. However, denying the sorts of developments that Sequoyah brought to the Cherokee Nation, in the hope of preserving some pristine sense of groupness, is ill-​conceived and misguided. This is not only my view, but it is implicit in the developmental dynamics of ‘small’ groups around the world.

62

Language policy and planning: terms of engagement

My point, however, is simply that even the most technical and apparently pragmatic of LPP activities are undergirded by ideologies—​and by conceptions of identity.

Notes 1 Like all imperial powers, Britain claimed to be an instrument for the civilisation of subaltern populations. However, it was principally the French version, the mission civilisatrice, that attended most directly to the spread of the European language. 2 Interesting forms of institutionally-​based LPP are found in multinational organisations—​where, for instance, a common corporate language may be the rule: see Edwards (2020b). 3 Thus, Wright (2016: 14) notes that “a number of scholars […] have used their sociolinguistic work to support the right of speakers of [‘small’] languages to continue to use them”. 4 I don’t mean to say that other approaches are always disinterested, of course—​but even a cursory survey of the relevant literature will reveal differences of degree here. 5 It is often useful to go back to first sources. While most know of Haugen’s model, fewer know that its outline came at the end of a fairly long discussion intended to clarify concepts such as languages, dialects and vernaculars; see Haugen (1966). 6 ‘Function’ is probably not the mot juste here. 7 When considering his initial approach almost 20 years later, Haugen (1983) found that it had stood up well. A very recent assessment (Ayres-​Bennett 2020) suggests some refinement to Haugen’s notion of codification. 8 As elsewhere, I have had to skip over many important points of detail here: see Baker and Wright (2021) for discussion of the variants of bilingual education, and of the often blurred distinctions among them.

Further reading Edwards, John (2009) Language and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. A comprehensive overview of virtually all the matters discussed in this chapter. Edwards, John (2010) Minority Languages and Group Identity. Amsterdam: Benjamins, https://​doi.org/​ 10.1075/​imp​act.27. As the title implies, this focusses closely on the ‘smaller’ languages that so often attract language policy-​and-​planning exercises. Edwards, John (2011) Challenges in the Social Life of Language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, https://​ doi.org/​10.1057/​978023​0302​204. Readers interested in language policy and planning will find specific discussions here of the most salient features: attitudes and motivations, secular and spiritual allegiances, the place of English in the world today, language spread, and linguistic imperialism. Gazzola, Michele, Torsten Templin, and Bengt-​Arne Wickström (eds.) (2018) Language Policy and Linguistic Justice. Berlin: Springer, https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-​3-​319-​75263-​1. This important collection links planning-​and-​policy initiatives to justice—​real or perceived—​for languages and their speakers. Jones, Mari (ed.) (2015) Policy and Planning for Endangered Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, https://​doi.org/​10.1017/​cbo97​8131​6162​880. A collection, with scope evident from the title, that complements the monograph by Edwards (2010), noted above. Kaplan, Robert and Richard Baldauf (1997) Language Planning: From Practice to Theory. Multilingual Matters. A seminal treatment, recommended initial reading for all those interested in the basic and enduring issues in language planning and policy. Language Problems and Language Planning. This journal, now (2023) in its forty-​seventh year, has long been an invaluable resource for empirical and theoretical work bearing upon language policy and planning. Spolsky, Bernard (2004) Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. An important book by one of the leading scholars in the field; as an overview it builds importantly on the seminal treatment of Kaplan and Baldauf (1997), noted above. Spolsky, Bernard (2009) Language Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Here, Spolsky returns to his earlier discussion (2004), expanding and making more precise the management of language exercises.

63

John Edwards Spolsky, Bernard (ed.) (2012) The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, https://​doi.org/​10.1017/​cbo97​8051​1979​026. This lengthy collection (of some 30 chapters) summarises the thoughts of Spolsky and the other leading lights in the field.

References Aitchison, Jean (2013) Language Change: Progress or Decay? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [originally published 1981], https://​doi.org/​10.1017/​cbo97​8113​9151​818 Amis, Kingsley (1997) The King’s English: A Guide to Modern Usage. London: Harper Collins. Ayres-​Bennett, Wendy (2020) “From Haugen’s codification to Thomas’s purism”, Language Policy, vol. 19, 183–​213, https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​s10​993-​019-​09521-​4 Baker, Colin and Wayne Wright (2021) Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. 7th edition, https://​doi.org/​10.21832/​baker9​899 Bender, Margaret (2002) Signs of Cherokee Culture. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Blake, Renée and Meredith Josey (2003) “The /​ay/​diphthong in a Martha’s Vineyard community”, Language in Society, vol. 32, 451–​485, https://​doi.org/​10.1017/​s00474​0450​3324​017 Bryson, Bill (1990) The Mother Tongue: English and How It Got That Way. New York: Morrow. Bugarski, Ranko (2001) “Language, nationalism and war in Yugoslavia”, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, vol. 151, 69–​87, https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​ijsl.2001.048 Edwards, John (2002) “Old wine in new bottles: critical remarks on language ecology”, in Boudreau, Annette, Lise Dubois, Jacques Maurais, and Grant McConnell (eds.) L’écologie des langues: mélanges William Mackey, 299–​324. Paris: L’Harmattan. Edwards, John (2003) “Contextualizing language rights”, Journal of Human Rights, vol. 2, 551–​571, https://​ doi.org/​10.1080/​1475​4830​3200​0137​138 Edwards, John (2004) “Should literacy be encouraged in contexts of linguistic endangerment?”, in Clarke, Sandra (ed.) Proceedings of the 26th Annual Meeting of the Atlantic Provinces Linguistic Association, 3–​23. St John’s: Memorial University of Newfoundland. Edwards, John (2008) “The ecology of language: insight and illusion”, in Creese, Angela, Peter Martin, and Nancy Hornberger (eds.) Encyclopedia of Language and Education: Volume 9: Ecology of Language, 15–​26. New York: Springer, https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-​0-​387-​30424-​3_​218 Edwards, John (2009) Language and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edwards, John (2012) “Language management agencies”, in Spolsky, Bernard (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy, 418–​436. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, https://​doi.org/​10.1017/​cbo97​ 8051​1979​026.026 Edwards, John (2020a) “Language: rights and claims”, in Peled, Yael and Daniel Weinstock (eds.) Language Ethics, 54–​89. Montreal: McGill-​Queen’s University Press, https://​doi.org/​10.2307/​j.ctv​15d7​z03.6 Edwards, John (2020b) “Language economics and language rights”, in Vigouroux, Cécile and Salikoko Mufwene (eds.) Bridging Linguistics and Economics, 224–​244. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, https://​doi.org/​10.1017/​978110​8783​101.010 Fowler, Henry (1926) A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. Oxford: Clarendon. Haugen, Einar (1966) “Dialect, language, nation”, American Anthropologist, vol. 68, 922–​935, https://​doi. org/​10.1525/​aa.1966.68.4.02a00​040 Haugen, Einar (1983) “The implementation of corpus planning”, in Cobarrubias, Juan and Joshua Fishman (eds.) Progress in Language Planning, 269–​289. Berlin: Mouton, https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​978311​0820​ 584.269 Horwill, Herbert (1935) A Dictionary of Modern American Usage. Oxford: Clarendon Jones, Mari (2015a) “Preface”, in Jones, Mari (ed.) Policy and Planning for Endangered Languages, xiii–​ xvii. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, https://​doi.org/​10.1017/​cbo97​8131​6162​880.001 Jones, Mari (ed.) (2015b) Policy and Planning for Endangered Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, https://​doi.org/​10.1017/​cbo97​8131​6162​880 Kaplan, Robert and Richard Baldauf (1997) Language Planning: From Practice to Theory. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. Kedourie, Elie (1961) Nationalism. New York: Praeger. Kibbee, Douglas (2009) “Patriotic roots of prescriptivism”, paper presented at the conference on Prescriptivism and Patriotism: Language Norms and Identities from Nationalism to Globalisation, University of Toronto.

64

Language policy and planning: terms of engagement Kimura, Goro Christophe and Lisa Fairbrother (eds.) (2020) A Language Management Approach to Language Problems. Amsterdam: Benjamins, https://​doi.org/​10.1075/​wlp.7 Kok, Annemarie (2001) “Gronings: een taal die pech heeft gehad”, www.trouw.nl/​nie​uws/​groni​ngs-​een-​taal-​ di-​pech-​heeft-​gehad~bb572​cae/​ Labov, William (1972) Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Leveen, Steven (2021) America’s Bilingual Century. Delray Beach: America the Bilingual Press. Nekvapil, Jiří and Tamah Sherman (2015) “An introduction: language management theory in language policy and planning”, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, vol. 232, 1–​12. Special Issue devoted to language management, https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​ijsl-​2014-​0039 Ó Laoire, Muiris (2005) “The language planning situation in Ireland”, Current Issues in Language Planning, vol. 6, 251–​314, https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​146642​0050​8668​284 Spolsky, Bernard (2004) Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Spolsky, Bernard (2009) Language Management. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress. Terrill, Angela (2002) “Why make books for people who don’t read? ”, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, vols. 155/​156, 205–​219, https://​doi.org/​10.1515/​ijsl.2002.029 Tieken-​Boon van Ostade, Ingrid (2009) “Usage guides and usage problems”, paper presented at the conference on Prescriptivism and Patriotism: Language Norms and Identities from Nationalism to Globalisation, University of Toronto. Tieken-​Boon van Ostade, Ingrid (ed.) (2018) English Usage Guides: History, Advice, Attitudes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, https://​doi.org/​10.1093/​oso/​978019​8808​206.001.0001 Venezky, Richard (1981) “Non-​standard language and reading: ten years later”, in Edwards, John (ed.) The Social Psychology of Reading, 193–​205. Silver Spring: Institute of Modern Languages. Webster, Noah (1828) An American Dictionary of the English Language. New York: Converse. Weinreich, Max (1945) “Der YIVO un di problemen fun undzer tsayt”, YIVO-​Bleter, vol. 25 (1), 3–​18. Williams, Glyn (1981) “The problematic in the sociology of language”, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, vol. 2, 219–​225. Winchester, Simon (1998) The Professor and the Madman. New York: Harper Collins. Wolff, Hans (1959) “Intelligibility and inter-​ethnic attitudes”, Anthropological Linguistics, vol. 1, 34–​41. Wright, Sue (2016) Language Policy and Language Planning: From Nationalism to Globalisation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, https://​doi.org/​10.1007/​978-​1-​137-​57647-​7

65

4 LANGUAGE COMPETITION MODELS Torsten Templin and Bengt-​Arne Wickström

1 Introduction In today’s world some 7000 languages are spoken.1 Many of these languages are in competition with one another, and in 100 years as many as half of the languages might be extinct.2 Language competition models have their origin in many disciplines, such as biology, physics, and economics. Indeed, many standard models in these fields can easily be (and have been) modified to model the sociolinguistic phenomenon of language competition. This chapter is concerned with the influence of language planning on long-​term language use and deals with how individual behaviour affects formal dynamic models of language use in society. Many decisions pertaining to what we do with language are choices made under more or less binding constraints; consequently, the toolbox of the economist is relevant. To understand how linguistic choices are made and how the linguistic repertoire of different individuals is formed, it is imperative to consider how people react to incentives. At times, this can be reduced to simple cost–​benefit considerations. These considerations are applied both in an analysis based on average behaviour—​we talk about macro models—​and to imitation behaviour in individual encounters—​ micro models. In micro models, both the choice between different well-​defined languages—​ language choice and shift—​and the internal change in a variety—​language evolution or change are analysed. In encounters, especially speakers of ‘low-​status’ languages may choose to imitate the other person by taking over certain features of the language usage of the interlocutor. After the effects of individual incentives on language use or change are identified, language policy affecting these incentives can be discussed. This is a central point in this chapter. We first discuss macro models, introducing some key concepts in a general meta-​structure in Section 2.1. This general framework makes the frequently implicit behavioural assumptions explicit and comparable. The framework is applied to three specific models in Section 3, and in Section 4 further similar models are briefly reviewed. Applications to language policy are discussed in Section 5. The relatively new trend of micro models with imitation behaviour is

66

DOI: 10.4324/9780429448843-5

Language competition models

briefly discussed in Section 6, and our conclusions in Section 7 are followed by some suggestions for further reading.

2  Key issues, concepts, and definitions Although the key issue of how individuals’ language choice is made and how this influences the long-​term survival of languages is modelled in some detail in a few articles inspired by economics,3 the intricacies of the long-​term dynamics and its feedback mechanisms are, if not neglected, at most treated en passant in these models. The integration of behaviour and long-​term language dynamics, which is the focus of this chapter, has mainly been developed by authors with a background in mathematics, physics, or biology. Unfortunately, this literature is to a large extent ignored by sociolinguists4 with some notable exceptions (see Ó Curnáin & Ó Giollagáin, this volume). We first present a general dynamic framework, within which the crucial determinants of individual behaviour, for instance the value of language as a carrier of identity versus as a means of communication, can be modelled. The connection between language policy, language status, and individual behaviour is discussed.

2.1  General framework: dynamic processes and the trade-​off between communication and identity First, we must address the question of what dynamics can add to static analysis. Dynamics consists of many processes evolving at the same time at different speeds. When these processes interact, various feedback mechanisms occur, some reinforcing one another and others pulling in opposite directions. To take a trivial example, assume that the number of active speakers of a minority language is declining. The individual incentive to include the language in the linguistic repertoire depends on two factors: the number of active speakers and the status of the language in society. The higher the status and the larger the community, the more inclined individuals are to use the language. A static analysis would consider these effects and conclude that status-​increasing actions by the government would both directly and indirectly influence the size of the minority community in a positive fashion. The size of the community can, in this way, be kept at a certain level. In a dynamic setting, we must look at how fast the incentives work on the individuals. If the status-​ increasing policy works more slowly than the reactions to the number of speakers, the language may be almost dead before the status change has worked its way through the behaviour of the few remaining speakers, who now have become too few for the language to grow again. On the other hand, if the status-​increasing measures work fast, the number of speakers will immediately start to increase, and this would reinforce the effect of the status-​increasing policy making the long-​term survival of the language possible.5 In this chapter, we concentrate on a few, but important, processes behind the growth or decline of a language. The family, the schools, migration, and imitation are the determinants of individuals’ linguistic repertoire. Concentrating on the family as source of language use by the offspring, we can distinguish several intertwined processes: family formation, family decisions on language use, and the government’s status planning in an infinite feedback system. Family formation occurs when two individuals together decide to have children. The type of individuals coming together, forming a family of a certain type (process 𝜇) is to some extent influenced by the norms of society (for short, we use 𝜃 to denote this) with its social stratification and linguistic landscape (denoted 67

Torsten Templin and Bengt-Arne Wickström

Figure 4.1 Dynamic structure

by 𝑝). Once children arrive, family decisions on language use begin (process 𝛼), and the children, once adult, go out looking for partners, to produce the next generation. At the same time the government may influence the norms of society through policy, for instance influencing the status of languages used. We illustrate this in Figure 4.1. Individuals form families in process 𝜇, and the families produce new individuals with different characteristics in process 𝛼. The linguistic landscape influences both processes: you are more likely to find a Navajo-​speaking partner in Arizona than in Hungary, and you are more likely to bring up your children speaking Basque in Spain than in Scotland. The government policy also influences the processes. A society characterised by peaceful cooperation between ethnic groups can be expected to have a higher rate of intermarriage between ethnic groups than a society where suspicion or outright animosity prevails between ethnic groups. In other words, family formation is influenced by social capital, which in turn can be influenced by the general (social) policy of the government. Furthermore, you are more likely to bring up your children in a high-​status language than in one that is frowned upon, and the status of a language can be influenced by government policy. The linguistic landscape consists of the observable variable 𝑝.6 Social norms (𝜃) and the status of the languages (𝑆) are, on the other hand, non-​observable, subjective variables influenced by policy; nonetheless they are of crucial importance both in reality and in the modelling of reality. The decision in (bilingual) families about which language(s) to pass on to the new generation is assumed to be motivated by two types of arguments: communication possibilities in the language and emotional attachment to the language as carrier of traditions and culture. The communicative possibilities are largely dependent on the linguistic landscape (𝑝), that is, which languages are generally used and understood in society. This can be influenced by language planning. The emotional value is a subjective variable that can depend on the pride in the culture, which in turn may be determined, at least partially, by the status of the language in society (𝑆). This status is highly dependent on language policy. All types of language policy, status, corpus, and acquisition planning contribute to the general status of a language and consequently to its transmission to the next generation. For parents speaking the minority language, two forces will confront each other in the linguistic choices for the children:7 the desire to communicate with many individuals favouring the learning of a big language8 and the desire of individuals to preserve their language for future generations.9 In this section we abstract from the many details when characterising processes capturing these forces.

68

Language competition models

Since many macro models in the literature have a similar dynamic structure, they can be brought together into a meta model. A crucial aspect in the meta-​structure is the importance of behavioural patterns capturing how families are formed and how they—​especially multilingual ones—​decide on the language(s) in which their offspring is raised. Since policy predominantly works via individuals, this opens the analysis for the influence of public policy on individual behaviour and, consequently, on language use in society.10

2.2  Notation and definitions For the brevity of this discussion, it is useful to assign symbols to the various ingredients of the model. We distinguish between two well-​defined languages, 𝐴 and 𝐵, and three types of individuals, monolinguals, type 𝐴 or 𝐵, as well as bilinguals, type 𝐶.11 The proportion of individuals of type 𝐿 in the society is 𝑝𝐿. That is, the distribution of types in society is given by 𝑝 =​{𝑝𝐴,𝑝𝐵,𝑝𝐶} with 𝑝𝐴+​𝑝𝐵+​𝑝𝐶 =​1. For simplicity, in the general framework it is assumed that language is transmitted in families consisting of two parents and, on average, two children.12 In other words, the size of the total population remains constant over time. Ignoring the fact that there are (at least) two genders,13 we can define six different types of couples (or families), 𝐹 =​{𝐴𝐴,𝐴𝐵,𝐴𝐶,𝐵𝐵,𝐵𝐶, 𝐶𝐶}. The frequency distribution of these types is 𝜇 =​{𝜇𝐴𝐴,𝜇𝐴𝐵,𝜇𝐴𝐶,𝜇𝐵𝐵,𝜇𝐵𝐶,𝜇𝐶𝐶} with 𝜇𝐴𝐴+​𝜇𝐴𝐵+​𝜇𝐴𝐶+​ 𝜇𝐵𝐵+​𝜇𝐵𝐶+​𝜇𝐶𝐶 =​1, and the frequency distribution over the types of children in a family 𝛼 =​{𝛼𝐴,𝛼𝐵 ,𝛼𝐶} with 𝛼𝐴+​𝛼𝐵+​𝛼𝐶 =​ 1. Let 𝑝𝑡 be the distribution of language groups in generation 𝑡 and 𝑝𝑡+​1 in the next generation. Formally, we can write the dynamics as follows: µ

α

p t → F → p t +1 This formula simply states that the percentage of the speakers of the different languages (𝑝) in period 𝑡 through the family formation process (𝜇) influences the types of families (𝐹) we will see in society in this period. The linguistic decision process (𝛼) in the families then determines the percentages of speakers (𝑝) in the next period 𝑡+​1. The behavioural processes 𝜇 and 𝛼 are crucial for the long-​term outcome of 𝑝 after many rounds.

2.3  Behavioural assumptions

Behaviour as response to different incentives is at the core of economic analysis. In our simple model, both variables 𝜇 and 𝛼 are determined by behaviour which itself has been influenced by the linguistic landscape and language policy.

2.3.1  Family formation Family formation is modelled as a stochastic process.14 Assuming that people meet at random, the probability that a given individual meets an individual of type 𝐿 is equal to 𝑝𝐿. The probability that such an encounter leads to a family is given by 𝜃. This process is repeated until all individuals are matched. In Table 4.1, we have entered the proportions of the various family types when all encounters are successful, except an encounter between an 𝐴-​and a 𝐵-​type individual (Society 𝐼: 𝜃𝐴𝐵 =​0 and all other 𝜃 equal to 1),15 and when all encounters are successful (Society 𝐼𝐼: all 𝜃 are equal to 1) and each encounter results in a family being formed. 69

Torsten Templin and Bengt-Arne Wickström Table 4.1 Frequencies 𝜇𝐹 of different family types for different societies and random encounters. In Society 𝐼, there are no mixed couples unless at least one partner is bilingual (the languages could be Hebrew and Arabic.) In Society 𝐼𝐼, all couples are possible (the languages could be Castilian and Catalan) Society

F

AA

AB

AC

BB

BC

CC

I

p + p A pB

0

2 p A pC

pB2 + p A pB

2 pB pc

pC2

II

p A2

2 p A pB

2 p A pC

pB2

2 pB pc

pC2

2 A

2.3.2  Family language choice The most important behavioural process is 𝛼, specifying the frequency distribution of types among children emerging from families of each type. As discussed above, we can distinguish between two important motivations for adopting a language: its practical benefit as a means of communication and its subjective value to the speakers as a carrier of identity and culture. The first motivation is determined by the number of speakers of the language in question; the higher the number of speakers, the higher the practical value of the language as a means of communication ceteris paribus.16 In other words, the practical benefit of becoming an 𝐴-​type depends on 𝑝𝐴+​𝑝𝐶, the proportion of individuals in society who can communicate in language 𝐴 (monolingual or bilingual). Similarly, the benefit of becoming a 𝐵-​type depends on 𝑝𝐵+​𝑝𝐶. Becoming a 𝐶-​type means you can communicate with everyone. This must be balanced against the learning costs, which vary with the family type. This leads to two basic assumptions: 𝛼𝐴, the frequency of 𝐴-​speaking children emerging from a certain family, will, on average, be higher, the more frequently language 𝐴 can be used in society (the higher 𝑝𝐴+​𝑝𝐶). The frequency will also be higher, the more solidly the language is anchored in the family. In other words, it is higher in an 𝐴𝐴-​family than in an 𝐴𝐶-​family, and so on. Against this practical benefit, we must weigh the emotional value of the languages in the family. We assume this depends on the parents’ type and on the (relative) status (𝑆) of the languages; 𝛼𝐵 will be higher, the higher the status of language 𝐵, and this effect is the highest in 𝐵𝐵-​families. The status variable is influenced by language policy.

3  Early development: three specific models in some detail We will discuss three macro models in some detail using the general framework. This discussion will show the importance of different behavioural assumptions for the survival of (societal) bilingualism and bilinguality (individual bilingualism). Many of the other models can also be seen as special cases of the general framework and will be briefly discussed without going into the technical details.

3.1  Language death and the model of Abrams and Strogatz (2003) The most streamlined model by far was set up by Abrams and Strogatz (2003). The authors apply their model to Gaelic in Cataibh (English: Sutherland), Scotland; Quechua in Wanuku suyu (Spanish: Huánuco), Peru; Welsh in Sir Fynwy (English: Monmouthshire), Wales; and Welsh in all of Wales and manage to calibrate the parameters of the model to get a rather good fit for the decline of those languages in those areas, predicting their death. 70

Language competition models Table 4.2 Frequencies 𝜇𝐹 of the different family types in Abrams and Strogatz (2003) F

AA

AB

AC

BB

BC

CC

pA

–​

–​

pB

–​

–​

Figure 4.2 Phase diagram for the model in Abrams and Strogatz (2003)

Adapting the model to our framework, the two variables 𝜇 and 𝛼 are easily identified. There are only two types of individuals, 𝐴 or 𝐵, and only two types of families (all 𝜃 are equal to 0, except 𝜃𝐴𝐴 and 𝜃𝐵𝐵, which are equal to 1); see Table 4.2. The family behaviour is also as simple as possible. In each family type, there is a certain ‘leakage’ to the other language.17 The average frequency of 𝐵-​type children emerging from 𝐴𝐴-​families is given by

α B ( AA; S , p ) = kS B pBr

and mutatis mutandis for 𝐴-​children from 𝐵𝐵-​families. The frequency increases with the proportion of 𝐵-​speakers in society (𝑝𝐵) and with the status of language 𝐵 (𝑆𝐵), which is exogenously given.18 The parameters 𝑘 and 𝑟 are used to calibrate the model. The dynamics permit three possible stationary states or long-​term equilibria: (1,0), (𝑎,1−𝑎), and (0,1), with 0