www.unamur.be

And what about the practical side of LPP?

Jeroen Darquennes

www.unamur.be

www.unamur.be

• Talk in Aberystwyth

– treated pleas for ‘post-Fishmanian’ sociolinguistics– need for macrosociolinguistics to find an alternative for

‚methodological nationalism‘ – need for macrosociolinguistics to rediscover and

‚operationalize‘ ist own richness methodological and theoretical challenges

– macrosociolinguistic view as a necessary complement to mircosociolinguistic views confronted with the challenge of cumulative comparative generalizations (Blommaert & Rampton 2011)

www.unamur.be

www.unamur.be

• Today’s talk

– builds on the previous one

– addresses LPP

– food for thought fits the idea of a workshop

www.unamur.be

Language policy and planning

www.unamur.be

• Language policy and language planning

– ‘grew up’ in the 1960s

– policy texts that aim at (re)affirming or changing language dynamics in society

– planning influence language dynamics by means of concrete measures

– chicken-and-egg-problem LPP

– LPP 4 overlapping ‘activities’ or ‘actions’

www.unamur.be

• Actions that aim at ...

– modifying the corpus

– influencing the status

– raising the prestige

– promoting the acquisition

of a language (variety)

www.unamur.be

• Subdivision

– used in ‘classical’ / ‘traditional’ LPP literature and research

– criticized < too rigid, too neat, too rational

– shines through in alternative approaches to LPP

www.unamur.be

• Alternative approaches

– levels of LPP (macro, meso, micro)

– visibility of LPP (covert vs. overt, explicit vs. implicit)

– LPP authorities (top-down vs bottom-up)

– ‘new’ theory (Spolsky‘s language management ≠ Neustupny‘s language management)

www.unamur.be

• Focus on ‘topics’ or ‘issues’

– cf. Ricento 2006 series of specific topics

– slimline alternative: research concentrates on

• history of LPP• LPP practices in different ‘domains’ or ‘spaces’ of society• ideas and beliefs about language• the practical side of LPP

www.unamur.be

• LPP practices

– initial focus on top-down activities in (semi-)official domains

– nowadays: all possible societal ‚spaces‘ on a public-private continuum

– language practices are linked to ideas and beliefs about language and to the language management strategies of those who (attempt to) influence the language behaviour of others

www.unamur.be

• Beliefs and ideas about language

– as an ‘object’ of study (macro-micro-level)

– also colour discussion about research on LPP itself treatment of linguistic diversity in broad terms: two research ‘traditions’ (= poles on a continuum)

• Language problems in pre-defined social groups that concern the corpus, status, ... of a named language used by the group

• Interplay of different styles, registers, repertoires that colour much of everyday communication in superdiverse (and often urban) communities of practice

www.unamur.be

• Practical dimension of LPP

– sometimes tends to be forgotten

– importance has been repeatdely stressed

– Ozolins (2013: 3115): “ideological stances and intentions will yield little, and may remain emptily symbolic, if language-planning technologies cannot be effectively put in place and help to make new language practices viable, acceptable, and rewarding for those using that language or form”

www.unamur.be

– Schiffman (2013: 3095): more attention ought to be paid to scrutinizing “the implementation of language policies” and focusing more on “practical and empirical issues”

– Grin et al. (2002): researchers should not only reflect on what kind of LPP activities are or should be developed in a specific context and why certain activities may be said to be more justified than others, but rather how certain LPP goals can be reached and if some practical way of reaching them is preferable to other ways

www.unamur.be

The practical side of LPP

www.unamur.be

• Practical side of LPP has been (partially) covered in research

– Haugen‘s work on language standardization– Fishman‘s RLS– LPP steps (cf. schemes in Kaplan & Baldauf 1997)– cost-benefit analysis (Grin)– curriculum development (didactique intégrée)– models of bi/multilingual education– ...

www.unamur.be

• What (largely) fails - I think - is

– systematic analysis of the entire management of the LPP process from the strategic analysis stage to the strategic planning stage

– point of departure: Webb (2002) and Labrie (1999)

– relevance for (top-down) LPP in the educational realm in European language minority settings

www.unamur.be

• Typical for many language policies is that they are promulgated by a government and/or other authoritative bodies or persons.

• The ‘design’ of a language-in-education policy implies the involvement of a number of actors (formal elites, influentials, counterelites, ...) acting in a specific socio-cultural and socio-political context and each having their own overt and/or covert agenda and motivations influencing the policy-making process (cf. Ager 2001).

www.unamur.be

• Possible research questions:

– Who are the actors involved in the decision-making process? What is their agenda? Who sets (has the power to set) the agenda?

– How are decisions made? – What kind of (ideological and practical) motivations

influence the policy-making and the decision-making process? What is the role of ‚identity‘?

– How do these elements fit into the socio-political, economic, cultural, … context?

– cf. Labrie’s grid to analyse ‘politique linguistique’ (policy and politics)

www.unamur.be

• Usually, a policy intended to influence the use and management of language in education addresses issues related to

– (a) the choice and share of languages in the curriculum, – (b) the precise target population of students receiving

language education, – (c) the supply of language teachers, – (d) the methodology of language teaching (including the

provision of materials), and – (e) the identification of available resources to support

language education (cf. Kaplan/Baldauf 1997: 115-116).

www.unamur.be

• The policy is put into practice by means of specific language planning measures.

• The process of institutionalization of the language-in-education policy is accompanied by a more symbolic discourse (i.e. a discourse of language, politics and society).

www.unamur.be

• Possible research questions

– Which specific measures are developed to implement the policy? What kind of measures are developed at which levels?

– Who develops these measures? Against which (scientific) background? What is the role of existing LPP theory and methodology?

– How and by whom are the measures implemented?– What are the outcomes of the language-in-education

policy? – What functions? What goes wrong? Why?

www.unamur.be

Comparative study of the practical management of top-down LPP processes in ‚unique‘ minority

language settings

• theory• methodology

Framework

• documents• language planners

(agencies, practitioners, ...)

• end users

Case studies• theory• methodology

Revised framework

www.unamur.be

• Why ?

– might help to close gaps in the ‘institutionalization’ of (the outcomes of) research on societal language ‘problems’

– will provide a better insight into the relevance of our trade