Week 14: Language planning and policy

The readings for this week required the understanding of the differences between language planning and policy, which I was unfamiliar with. In Chapter 4 by McKay and Heng, Deumert (2000, p. 384) states that language policy "refers to the more general linguistic, political, and social goals underlying the actual language planning process." Language planning involves making conscious decisions about a language status (official or national) or language corpus (the script, grammar, spelling, etc.) based on the previously mentioned goals and ideologies. These two concepts are undoubtedly linked, which we can see in the examples given in Singapore and the United States. Language is a concept that must be studied with a 'worldly' view and looked at in its social, cultural, historical, economic, or political contexts. This notion relates to language politicking, which concerns how language reflects the current society and the interplay of language and power, especially with the recent impact of globalization. This worldliness of language has certain implications for language planning, often causing conflicting viewpoints on the status of a language. This chapter also discussed English as an official language and how it is seen as a unifying bond for nations and believed to lead to economic success and international/inter-racial communication. Even though the goal is for English to be a neutral medium, this still underlies the idea that Standard English is the only appropriate form and it places English as superior to other languages. I was intrigued when reading about Ebonics in the United States and how it is a “ghettoizing” language rather than an “empowering” one, which is a perfect example of how our ideologies are reflected in the languages we value. I thought this quote on page 111 was something that all ESL/EFL teachers should keep in mind when embracing our student’s native languages; “the reality that Ebonics, the linguistic form a student brings to school, is intimately connected with their loved ones, community and personal identity.”

King and Fogle’s paper examines family language policies regarding additive bilingualism and how families’ beliefs shape their actual language planning. Bilingualism in the United States can be difficult due to the high status of English and policies that fail to support non-English languages. This is why the choices parents make in aiding their child’s bilingualism, whether it is for economic opportunities or maintaining cultural ties, are very significant. The findings of this study found that parents indeed are critical consumers of information that guides their decisions and they also rely on their own personal language learning experiences. Although these parents were very informed on why bilingualism is important, they were relatively unaware on the challenges that they may face in the process that may hinder their high expectations for their children.

Both of these readings stress the impact of language policy on language planning and what it demonstrates about a nation’s belief on a language, especially English.