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
•
•
•
•
www.unamur.be
history of LPP
LPP practices in different ‘domains’ or ‘spaces’ of society
ideas and beliefs about language
the practical side of LPP
• LPP practices
– initial focus on top-down activities in (semi-)official
domains
– nowadays: all possible societal ‚spaces‘ on a publicprivate 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
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
www.unamur.be
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
...
• 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 sociocultural 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-ineducation 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
www.unamur.be
Case studies
• documents
• language planners
(agencies,
practitioners, ...)
• end users
• theory
• methodology
Revised
framework
• 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
www.unamur.be