Does Language Policy Do What It Says on the Tin?

1. Does Language Policy Do What It Says on the Tin? Some Perspectives on Language Planning

2. Power – Discourse - Ideology • (See Tollefson 1995:2 or Tollefson 1991) • ‘Discourse power’ – ‘encounters between unequal individuals’ • ‘State power’ – the ‘control of the armed forces and the agencies of government’ • ‘Ideological power’ – projecting specific power relations as natural, common-sense and ahistorical • Language policies: ‘an outcome of power struggles and an arena for those struggles.’ (Ibid. p2) • Language policies are ‘associated with a rhetoric of “equality” and “opportunity” but often = low paying jobs for minorities. (Ibid. p3) • English language teachers ‘too often adopt uncritical assumptions about the value of English’ which are ‘self-serving.’ (Ibid. p3) • So … • So what? • How does that affect your own language background? (e.g. you don’t have to be bilingual for you to have a bilingual experience.)

3. What Do Language Policies Try To Do? • Status Planning • About uses of language • Which language(s) to use, and where • Which are the ‘official’ or ‘national’ language(s)? • Which languages should be banned? Revived? Maintained? • Acquisition Planning • About users of language • Who uses language? What kind of groups are they? Educational? National? Minority Groups? • How can these groups best acquire languages? • Why do they ‘lose’ their languages and acquire others? (language shift)

4. ‘Language Planning and Policy Goals: An Integrative Framework’ (Hornberger, 2006:29)

5. The Role of the State (1) • Governments design language policy • Choose which language (Status Planning) • Based on consultation with the public? • Sometimes, yes – but often this will ignore public opinion if it is too costly • Or … perhaps worse, design a language policy based upon popular opinion • Popular opinions (or common beliefs) about language? • ‘Immigrants should learn English’? • ‘One nation, one language’? • Ideologies / discourses structure language policy decisions, not just linguistic reasons

6. The Role of the State (2) • Implementation of policy (acquisition planning) • Through local councils / educational authorities • Through schools • Through teachers • In e.g. healthcare systems: similar structures • Language policy usually is understood in the educational context • But often other contexts, such as healthcare (see Tollefson 1991: 78)

7. Status Planning Acquisition Planning Static View of Power Relations in Policy-Making and Implementation

8. Democratic Accountability Can be mediated through and by Media, Unions etc.; can be through direct involvement Dynamic View of Power/Knowledge and Resistance in Policy-Making and Implementation

9. But … Are language planning goals always met? Two Case Studies • Taiwan has 3 major ethno-linguistic groups (Mandarin 12%, Taiwanese 73%, Hakka 13%) and 12 minor groups (Austronesian indigenous language groups – app. 2%) [data from Huang 1993] • + Now (2007) 1.6% brides from South East Asia, domestic workers, etc. • Taiwan NOT recognised as an independent entity by the United Nations or most countries. • The Problem: • Under Martial Law, all languages except Mandarin were repressed • Under ‘liberal-democracy’, multi-cultural discourses suggest revival of minority languages • English needed for ‘international communication’ • New brides need to learn local languages / keep their own • Discussion – what are the ideologies / discourses which ‘frame’ these issues as ‘problems’? • Who are ‘stakeholders’ in language policy? Do they all agree? • What are the goals of language policies? (Not solutions)

10. Goals: • Deciding which languages are official/national (Form / Status) • Reviving minority languages (Function / Status) • Minority languages in schools, community groups (Form / Acquisition) • Language Maintenance / Reversing Shift (Function / Acquisition) • English as possible 2nd official language (Form / Status) • English for international communication (Function / Status) • English education in schools? As University entrance exams? (Form / Acquisition) • Local language education for new immigrants? (Form / Status + Form/ Acquisition) • Rights to maintain immigrant languages (Function / Status = Function Acquisition) • Etc. …

11. Possible Solutions? • Compulsory minority language education for all • Compulsory English education for all • Officialise all languages • Officialise none • Officialise English • Compulsory immigrant education for all? • Other Solutions? • Discussion: What are the costs / benefits of each of these solutions? • What unintended consequences can they have? • What problems can these unintended consequences cause for policy?

12. Unintended consequences: • Minority language education is good in theory – but not tested at the University level (unlike English or Mandarin) • Making all languages official is an administrative impossibility • Making one or two languages official risks inflaming the other linguistic groups – and not in the spirit of multiculturalism • Possibly dividing society along ethnic lines? • Thus things stay the same, officially • Leaving things be = possibility of a new dominant language group (a ‘minority within a minority’ – Blommaert & Vershueren 1998:205; Edwards 1994: 195-6)

13. But … Are language planning goals always met? Two Case Studies Harib Pal (in Tollefson 1991: 44) • The Problem: • Harib does not speak English well but in mainstream education he ‘needs’ to • Harib is also not literate in Bengali/Sylheti • Harib’s parents do not speak English (and rely on him for translation at e.g. doctors) • Discussion – what are the ideologies / discourses which ‘frame’ these issues as ‘problems’? • Who are ‘stakeholders’ in language policy? Do they all agree? • What are the goals of language policies? (Not solutions)

14. Goals: • Maintenance of English as the majority language – but not necessarily ‘nationalising’ or ‘officialising’ English (Form / Status) • English for ‘intra-national’ communication (Function / Status) • Teaching Harib English in Schools (Form / Acquisition) • Teaching English as a Second Language (Function / Acquisition) • Maintenance of Harib’s minority linguistic / community identity (Function / Status) • Bengali as (Form / Status)? • Teaching Bengali literacy (Function / Acquisition) • Teaching Bengali in the community / through mainstream education? (Form / Acquisition) • Any other goals (not solutions)?

15. Possible Solutions? • To teach Harib’s parents English so they can speak it at home (and presumably teach it to him and also understand their doctor) • To put him in a bilingual Bengali / English school (e.g. immersion) • To put him in a monolingual English school and encourage him to ‘lose’ Bengali • To provide remedial education in English • To provide Bengali education in the mainstream educational context • To provide resources for Bengali tuition within the community • To let the community be responsible for its own language maintenance • To provide translation services for Harib and his family for e.g. doctors visits • To provice education in Bengali for Harib’s doctor • Other Solutions? • Discussion … What are the costs / benefits of each of these solutions? • What unintended consequences can they have? (Use the examples in the Tollefson reading, but also think of your own? • What problems can these unintended consequences cause for policy?

16. Summary • Language policies are often ideological positions and constructed by societal discourses • But it is clear that they are not ‘one-way’ operations of power that ‘impose’ one solution • Indeed, the very ‘problems’ which they set out to solve are framed by ideologies and discourses in society • Language policies can be productive operations of power that a) cause unintended consequences and b) invite resistance to operations of power by individuals are groups • Language policies with ‘good intentions’ can actually re-create the inequalities they set out to reduce. • So … we have to understand policy not as merely a ‘cost/benefit’ analysis, but in relation to the way it is formulated and the effects it produces • Language policies have implications for users of other community services such as healthcare, social services, not just for schoolchildren