Language Planning and Microlinguistics

From Policy to Interaction and Vice Versa

W. Davies, E. Ziegler, W. Davies, E. Ziegler

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9781137361233
• eBook ISBN: 9781137361240
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Historical & Comparative Linguistics
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Whilst earlier studies of language planning and of standardisation have tended to study macro processes, this volume is in line with more recent work aimed at bridging the macro and the micro levels by examining how the two interact and influence each other. It covers seven countries and deals with a range of sociolinguistic constellations.

1

Language Planning and Microlinguistics: Introduction

Winifred V. Davies

Aberystwyth University

and

Evelyn Ziegler

University of Duisburg-Essen

1.1 Background

The term ‘language planning’ seems to have been first used by Einar Haugen when writing about the linguistic situation in modern Norway. He defined it as: ‘the activity of preparing a normative orthography, grammar, and dictionary for the guidance of writers and speakers in a non-homogeneous speech community’ (1959, p. 8). Language planning was apparently restricted to a monolingual society and referred to ‘corpus planning’ only, that is, to decisions about the forms and structures of a language, specifically those involved in standardization (the distinction between status and corpus planning was introduced by Kloss, 1969). Over the years the term has broadened its scope and is nowadays probably associated more often with multilingual societies than with monolingual ones. According to Cooper (1989, p. 45), it describes ‘deliberate efforts to influence the behavior of others with respect to the acquisition, structure, or functional allocation of their codes’, whilst Spolsky (2009, p. 4) says it refers to ‘conscious and explicit efforts by language managers to control the choices [between languages, or between varieties of one language: WVD/EZ]’.¹ A related concept, which sometimes, but not always, appears to be used synonymously with language planning, is language policy. Shohamy (2006, p. 49) makes a clear distinction between language planning as an activity that involves ‘sweeping intervention and control of language behavior’ and language policy, which ‘attempts to be less interventionist and to refer mostly to principles with regard to language use’. Deumert also distinguishes language planning from language policy, but from a different angle, stating that: ‘Language policy describes the underlying political and sociolinguistic goals that are implied in the activities and measures of language planners’ (2001, p. 644). However, Hornberger (2006, p. 25) reminds us that language policy and planning are inextricably linked, and a distinction is not always obvious; therefore, she says, the field is commonly and usefully referred to as language policy and planning (LPP).

LPP at the level of the nation or state has often been studied, probably because it is most visible at this level (cf. Kaplan and Baldauf, 1997, p. xi), but planning and policy can occur at other levels, too. The terms ‘macro’, ‘meso’ and ‘micro’ are used to refer to different levels at which LPP takes place; for example, Kaplan and Baldauf (1997, p. 117) distinguish between a macro level, meaning national and above, micro, meaning smaller organizations, and meso for intermediate levels like local government. As Spolsky (2009, p. 13) points out, the terms are not always used consistently, for example Mac Giolla Chríost (2006) makes a binary division between macro and micro, using the latter for anything below the national level in Ireland. But, as Spolsky (2009, p. 13) also points out, most scholars seem to agree ‘on a range of situations [...] forming a continuum from individual to supranational’. Similarly, Nekvapil and Nekula (2006, p. 308) refer to macro and micro as representing extreme points on a social space continuum. In practice this means that the terms need to be defined relative to each other whenever they are used, since the social spaces, that is the social contexts within which LPP happens,² will vary. As Nekvapil and Nekula (2006, p. 308) go on to say, the terms can be conceptualized in yet another way, ‘as the contrast between social structure (macro) vs. interaction (micro)’. In this volume the terms are used in different ways by different authors, but a common theme is the importance of establishing how policies, on whatever level they have been created or have emerged, ‘are interpreted and appropriated by agents in a local context’ (Johnson, 2009, p. 141); the aim is to uncover the link between policies and practices, between laws and regulations and social interactions.³

Top-down macro-level (and even meso-level) policy is often, but not exclusively, overt, explicit, formalized, de jure, codified and manifest (Schiffman, 1996, p. 13). There are, however, cases like the UK, where English is de facto the official language even though that status is not codified in a law or written constitution: however, various mechanisms (Shohamy, 2006, pp. 57f.) contribute to maintaining its dominant status, for example education policies, language tests.⁴ Schiffman (1996, p. 13) also refers to covert, implicit, informal, unstated, de facto, grass-roots and latent language policies. They may not be in line with official, explicitly stated policies and may sometimes even lead to practices that are not desired by official policy-makers and planners. Lippi-Green (2012, p. 117) describes a study of Disney films which shows that ‘the overall representation of persons with foreign accents is far more negative than that of speakers of U.S. or British English’. It is fairly clear that some sort of covert policy is being followed in these films, based on attitudes towards and beliefs about language(s) rooted in the dominant linguistic culture in which the films were produced (cf. Schiffman, 1996, p. 276). Another example of covert or implicit language policy is the way in which immigrant languages are downgraded in relation to English in US education policies that prescribe regular testing in English language skills in order to measure and ensure educational success (cf. ‘In addition, states must prove progress in English but not in students’ native languages’, Menken, 2008, p. 162).

1.2 Macro–meso–micro

Until fairly recently there have been few studies which examine connections between the various levels of LPP, although we have a range of studies of top-down macro-level processes such as the campaigns to have a particular variety or language given the status of ‘official’ or ‘national’ language (for example in Norway) or to be included in the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages (for example Low German). Even countries that do not have official or semi-official language planning agencies or who have no laws that refer specifically to language(s) engage in language planning at the macro or meso level, although it may come in other guises and can be described as implicit and covert. Examples would be the debate about what variety of English to teach in the National Curriculum when it was introduced in the late 1980s (Cameron, 2012, pp. 109–15) or laws which relate to citizenship and include language tests, for example the Integrationstest introduced in Germany in 2005.⁵ Laws and regulations which appear at first sight to have nothing to do with language may nevertheless affect a country’s linguistic ecology, for example legislation permitting mobility within the EU has enabled Polish to become the second most spoken language in England.⁶ It is fairly clear that some of these activities are not the result of deliberate policies on language and are not primarily intended to contribute to language planning. It is likely that in some cases at least the LPP element is a by-product of certain unspoken assumptions about language(s) and about the desirability or necessity of using certain varieties or languages in certain domains or for certain functions (for example the assumption that a minority language cannot be used to discuss a scientific topic, or that a non-standard dialect should never be used in the classroom).

What is also obvious is that policies or activities at the macro or meso level do not necessarily have the intended effects on the ground, so for example the fact that Irish is the first official language of Ireland has not resulted in all speakers of Irish being able to live their daily lives through the medium of Irish, and the inclusion of Low German in the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages is unlikely to do much to change the language ecology of northern Germany.⁷ Official status does not guarantee revitalization or protection: ‘conferring status on the language of a group relatively lacking in power doesn’t necessarily ensure the reproduction of a language’ (Nettle and Romaine, 2000, pp. 39–40; see, too, Diver, this volume). Similarly, although all pupils at state schools in Wales have had to learn Welsh up to age 16 since 1999, this has not increased the number of young adults claiming to be able to speak Welsh.⁸ On the other hand, earlier education policies aimed at extirpating minority languages like Welsh and Occitan (or non-standard varieties of languages) were not a total success. The effects of macro-level policies may also of course be rather indirect and take a long time to manifest themselves; for example, categorizing a variety as a language rather than a dialect (for example, Low German in the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages) or as an official or national language (for example, Luxembourgish in the Language Law of 1984; see the chapters by Gilles and Wagner, this volume) can give it a certain status that may ultimately affect attitudes and, consequently, behaviour, but it does look as if there can be many a slip twixt the macro-level cup and the micro-level lip. In our opinion, Cameron (2012, pp. 14–15) is right when she writes that the processes whereby norms ‘get into’ or are ‘taken up’ by language users are still under-studied in sociolinguistics (the statement would be equally valid if the word ‘policy’ were substituted for the word ‘norms’), and we would agree with Hundt (2009, p. 117) that (‘ordinary’) language users have tended to be marginalized in theoretical models of standardization, for example in Ammon’s model of the social forces – codifiers, norm authorities, model speakers/writers and linguists – which interact to determine which language forms can be considered standard (Ammon, 1995, 2003; see, too, Dovalil, this volume). One of the aims of this volume is therefore to examine the role of various users in order to throw light on the ways in which they ‘take up’ (or resist) sociolinguistic norms or macro- and meso-level policies in practice.

This volume is in line with recent work such as Horner (2009), which aims to bridge the different levels of LPP by examining the interaction between them and trying to establish connections between attempts at top-down policy implementations and practices ‘from below’ (Horner, 2009, p. 101). The contributors to the present volume try amongst other things to ascertain to what extent and in what way the macro and/or meso levels influence the micro level and how micro-level behaviours and attitudes contribute to the creation, maintenance and/or modification of macro-level policies. Amongst the different layers of LPP that are dealt with (cf. Ricento and Hornberger, 1996) we find discussions of explicitly formulated official rules and regulations, and of the role of the agents that are involved in implementing them (Spolsky, 2009, p. 225 calls them managers), for example in the educational domain or in multinational companies. These range from individuals such as local branch managers or teachers of German as a foreign language (see Fairbrother and Dovalil, this volume) to regional or cantonal government (see Diver and Berthele, this volume) to national education ministries (see Wagner, this volume). Studies of practices in specific situations, domains and institutions then throw light on the extent of the success of official policies (see Hall and Hornsby and Fairbrother, this volume). In this context, we have to remember that ‘[...] the success of language-planning efforts will ultimately depend on the evaluation of measures and prescriptions by the individual speaker’ (Haarmann, 1990, p. 117), that is, on speakers’ attitudes towards the languages and varieties which they use, or which language planners want them to use (see Berthele and Deppermann et al., this volume). One theoretical approach that is used by more than one contributor is language management theory (Jernudd and Neustupný, 1987; Nekvapil, 2009). This is an attempt to link the micro and the macro by stressing the importance of establishing where problems occur in interaction and what happens when they are noted and evaluated negatively – what measures are then adopted in order to remove these problems (N.B. this theory is not identical with ‘language management’ as used by Spolsky, 2009, see above).

1.3 The present volume

The book is divided into three parts – education, practice, and ideology/attitudes. This division is to some extent arbitrary since there are no clear-cut boundaries between the topics dealt with in the different chapters: the contributions in the part on education, for example, also of course refer to practices, and attitudes and ideologies underpin and influence the policies and practices that are described in the first two parts.

1.3.1 Education

In most societies, educational institutions are an important, if not the most important, agent of LPP, where LPP is usually obvious to all participants, and where the raison d’être of many actors (for example teachers of German) is to implement particular policies relating to language, such as the transmission of a standard. Depending upon the political system, these policies may be regarded as emanating from the macro or meso level:⁹ in Luxembourg the production of language-in-education policy (as expressed for example in curricula) is the responsibility of central government, but in Germany and Switzerland it is devolved to the federal states and cantons.

Four chapters investigate some aspect of the link between top-down policy-making and what users actually do in schools or at university. These contributions cover four different countries: Germany, Switzerland, Luxembourg and the Czech Republic, and discuss a range of (socio)linguistic constellations. The first chapter, by Rothe and Wagner, analyses the relationship between top-down policies on bilingual kindergarten education in Germany and bottom-up influences such as attitudes towards languages, which influence demand for and acceptance of the policy, with a clear divide between languages regarded as prestigious and others (usually migrant languages). What is interesting, but not unexpected, is that the community is not homogeneous and attitudes vary, so that lived experiences of bilingualism are influential in shaping attitudes – this implies that policies tailored to local demands may be more successful than uniform ones aimed at a larger, more undifferentiated constituency.

Berthele’s chapter examines the link be...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• Acknowledgements
• Notes on the Contributors
• 1 Language Planning and Microlinguistics: Introduction
• Part I Education
• Part II Practice
• Part III Ideology and Attitudes
• Index