Language Planning in School-based Language Revival Programs
PHILIPPA DUNDON1 Senior Curriculum Officer, Aboriginal Languages,
Board of Studies NSW
Introduction
This paper examines the role of language planning within school-based language revival
programs, particularly focusing on Indigenous2 language revival programs within
Australia. It provides an overview of language planning concepts and definitions, and
examines language planning as it relates to language revival programs in general, and to
school-based language programs in particular. The term ‘language revival’ is used here
as a cover term for related types of language revitalisation, renewal and reclamation
projects and programs that are being developed all around Australia (Amery 2000,
pp 17–18; SA DETE 1999, p 19; Board of Studies 2003). The paper concludes by
examining the language planning and policy background in Australia, and how this
environment influences the policy and funding issues that affect school-based language
revival programs.
Language planning
In a multilingual society decisions need to be made about the functions and roles that
different languages will play in that society. This is a type of language planning that
includes making decisions about the national and/or official language(s), the
language(s) of education and government, the role of community languages especially,
the place and role of Indigenous languages. Language planning may also take place as
part of language revival efforts, as communities try to reverse language loss. Language
planning in this case is a form of social planning that takes place in response to a social
issue or need (Eastman 1983, p 36).
What is language planning?
Language planning is a broad field of study that, in response to a perceived language
problem or issue, enables practitioners to examine the possible options that speakers
may have available to them and recommend a range of potential actions (Eastman 1983,
p 2). All languages are constantly facing changes of one kind or another. This is a
natural phenomenon and languages that fail to adapt to the changing circumstances of
their speakers may become restricted in their use, leading to a decline in the domains in
which they are spoken. Language survival depends on having a variety of functions for
the language to fulfil. This means that, consciously or not, speakers are constantly being
presented with alternatives and having to make choices, either between language
1
2
Philippa Dundon was Senior Curriculum Officer, Aboriginal Languages at the Office of the Board of
Studies in 2004. This paper was written as a result of that work.
In NSW many people prefer the term ‘Aboriginal’ to be used. However, as this paper discusses
programs throughout Australia as well as within NSW, I have used the term ‘Indigenous’ for
consistency throughout to refer to both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and programs.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Language Planning in School-based Language Revival Programs
Page: 1
varieties or within a language. Language planning, then, can be seen as a conscious or
‘explicit choice among alternatives’ (Fasold 1984, p 246).
Hornberger (1997, p 7, in Hinton 2001b, pp 52–53) discusses language planning in
terms of two approaches and four types of planning. The approaches include, firstly,
‘cultivation planning’, which deals with how the language itself might be maintained or
revived, including, for example, within a school-based language revival program. The
second approach discussed is ‘policy planning’, which considers the implementation of
decisions about the function(s) and role(s) of languages within either a particular society
or country, such as Australia, or context, such as within the education system. The four
types of planning include status planning, acquisition planning, corpus planning and
writing.3
‘Status planning’ involves choices that are made with regard to the function of a
language or dialect (Cooper 1989, p 32). This includes deliberate choices that are made
and agreed upon within a community about, for example, which language will be used
in a particular situation or domain. That is, status planning addresses how languages
function in multilingual societies, including as an/the official national language, a
community language, a language of education (as the medium of instruction) or as a
school subject language, which is taught as a second language. Language is a very
important and powerful means by which people identify themselves and others, and as
such is often used to make a political point of difference and prior ownership as found
in cases as diverse as Celtic in Ireland and ari in Aotearoa. Status planning, then, is
often highly political (Cooper 1989, p 32). Status planning may take place at either a
community level or, more formally, at a governmental level.
‘Acquisition planning’ refers to members of the community actively planning language
revival programs to maintain or reclaim a language. In general terms, this is where
decisions about the types of programs suitable for teaching the language to the
community will be determined, such as whether it is possible to implement a schoolbased language revival program (Cooper 1989, p 32). Such programs will need to be
tailored to the unique and individual needs of each language situation, as well as to the
linguistic backgrounds of the students (Ministry of Education Western Australia 1992,
p 10). There are four main school-based language program types that have been
identified by the South Australian Department of Education, Training and Employment
(SA DETE 1999, pp 19–20), and that are often referred to by practitioners. These
include the following:
 first language maintenance and development, in which a fully spoken Indigenous
language is the students’ first language
 second language learning, in which students learn an Indigenous language (which
may or may not be their language of heritage) as a second language
 language revival, including: language revitalisation, which describes a situation in
which older people in the community still speak the language, but it is not being
passed on the younger generation; language renewal, in which the language is not
3
Writing refers to the planning that is necessary for developing a written language. For the purposes of
this paper I will incorporate ‘writing’ under corpus planning, primarily because it has to do with the
form of language and its ability to change, express new concepts and be used in every domain
necessary for its speakers.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Language Planning in School-based Language Revival Programs
Page: 2

spoken fluently but much language knowledge remains in the community; and
language reclamation, where the language is not spoken in the community, but
much knowledge is available from historical texts
language awareness, in which there is not enough oral or written language
knowledge to enable the teaching of the language for communication purposes.
‘Corpus planning’ occurs when planning involves a change within the body of the
language. For example, this may mean the standardisation of a language, including its
pronunciation and spelling. This aspect of corpus planning is linked closely to status
planning because the standardisation of one dialect over another has obvious
implications for the status of both dialects. Corpus planning may also involve language
adaptation and, in some cases, ‘modernisation’ of vocabulary and grammatical rules to
allow the language to express new communicative functions, new technologies and,
often, new political goals (Cooper 1989, p 32). An example of the development of ways
to express new technologies includes the creation of a new word for ‘computer’ in
Indigenous languages such as the Gamilaraay/Yuwaalaraay/Yuwaalayaay languages.
This and other such developments have been repeated in a number of Indigenous
languages around the country.
Why is language planning important?
Language planning has important sociocultural and practical implications. On a
sociocultural level, the linguistic change that leads to language endangerment and loss is
very often closely linked to social change and colonisation (Mercurio and Amery 1996,
p 26). Providing a positive focus on the language can help reverse some of the adverse
effects of colonisation, assisting the minority language to gain prestige, and the speakers
to regain pride in their language. It can also be a vehicle for transmitting Indigenous
history and cultural heritage to both the Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities,
promoting cross-cultural communication and understanding. The production of
materials written in language allows those in the community to study, learn and teach
the language. This in turn opens up a new cultural function for the Indigenous language,
making it more accessible to the community. Finally, the cultural benefits of such a
‘spiritual revival’ of language may also lead to economic benefits in that native speakers
and Indigenous community members may then have the opportunity to work as teachers
of the language (Dorian 1987, p 34). These issues are particularly relevant in a country
such as Australia, which, according to Mercurio and Amery (1996):
has one of the worst records in relation to the survival of Indigenous
languages. Only about 20 of the original 250–270 languages are
considered to be in a relatively healthy state. All Australian languages
are threatened. (p 26)
On a practical and linguistic level, language planning is essential when it comes to
strategic language rebuilding and developing language revival programs, allowing
communities to thoroughly research the language in terms of resources and materials as
well as level of support within the community. It also enables communities to make
informed decisions on the best options that are available to them in terms of likely
programs and available funding, and to set some realistic and informed long- and shortterm goals for the language revival program.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Language Planning in School-based Language Revival Programs
Page: 3
Who is involved in language planning?
Language planning occurs at many different levels in society, including at societal and
governmental levels, within education systems and specific groups and even between
individuals within a community. Furthermore, every society has a language policy of
sorts, ‘although many policies exist implicitly and in the absence of planning’ (Eastman
1983, p 6).
Language planning, particularly status planning, is not restricted to the fields of
linguistics or socio-linguistics, although both of these disciplines obviously play a
crucial role in status, acquisition and corpus planning. Involvement in status planning
activities is likewise not restricted to particular official bodies or groups of people and
communities, and it can be carried out by almost anyone. Governments, however, with
their access to both resources and policy-making and legislative functions are in a
position to make ‘the most wide-ranging (but not necessarily the most successful)
decisions that influence language’ (Fasold 1984, p 251). Those involved in language
planning outside of government, including educational bodies and agencies, nongovernment organisations, community groups and linguists, usually do not have the
same influence and resources at their disposal. These groups are thus forced to use other
means, such as political lobbying, to put pressure on government to support their
language planning activities and policy recommendations (Fasold 1984, p 253). There is
an advocacy role, therefore, for organisations such as these, including, for example, the
Federation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Languages (FATSIL), which is the
national body for community-based Indigenous language programs in Australia.
Acquisition and corpus planning, on the other hand, require much more in the way of
technical expertise, and as such the field of participants is somewhat more limited.
Linguists play a large role in corpus planning, as they work with communities to
analyse and describe languages, to develop orthographies, dictionaries and grammars,
and to assist communities in the development of writing systems and the adaptation of
language to incorporate new expressions. Corpus planning, therefore, for the most part
involves speech communities and linguists. As well as these groups, acquisition
planning has another dimension in that other bodies, such as educational organisations,
can also influence and play a part in making decisions about the teaching of languages
and the need for the standardisation of a language. Those involved in acquisition and
corpus planning are also involved, whether directly or indirectly, in status planning.
Each type of planning described above will tend to use both a policy-making approach
— whether internal to the affected community, or external with the aim of influencing a
state or national language policy — and a cultivation approach in terms of planning to
maintain or reclaim the language.
Language Planning in School-based Language Programs
Language planning is an essential part of a sound language revival program, and this
includes school-based language revival programs (Hinton 2001b, p 51). The research
process helps the community to set realistic goals and strategies. It also allows smaller
projects to be incorporated into the overall strategy, leading to more cohesion between
what might otherwise be a series of separate, disparate projects. With an effective
community voice, Language planning will help to ensure that the community remains in
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Language Planning in School-based Language Revival Programs
Page: 4
control of setting the agenda for its internal language policy, rather than relinquishing it
to outside agencies such as governments and educational bodies — although all of these
may play an important role within the plan. And finally, good planning can assist by
reducing and/or preventing ‘factionalism and rivalry that might otherwise arise around
language and reduce the effectiveness of revitalisation efforts’ (Hinton 2001b, p 51).
Language revival programs
The language revival process can best be described as a continuum (Bobaljik &
Pensalfini 1996, p 9), with the highest aspirational goal being ‘the development of
programs that result in re-establishing a language which has ceased being the language
of communication in the speech community and bringing it back into full use in all
walks of life’ (Hinton 2001a, p 5). At the other end of the scale, a language revival
program might be dealing with issues such as the loss of the language in various
domains. This might include, for example, English dominating as the language of
technology and the resulting loss of that type of vocabulary in the language under threat.
In the case of most Australian Indigenous languages, particularly along the southeastern seaboard, most languages are deeply endangered. In these cases, the goal of the
language revival program may not be to restore the language to all domains, as
mentioned above. Indeed, although this may be an ultimate goal, it is important that the
program also sets smaller, more manageable goals from which communities can see
important milestones reached during a much longer language reclamation project, and
might include such elements as the development of language learning materials and
resources (Amery 2000, p 36). This kind of planning fits within the current policy and
planning environment, in which funding is most often allocated for discrete projects
rather than ongoing programs. If these projects can be planned in a way that enables the
progressive achievement of smaller language revival outcomes within a larger
community language revival program, then they will more effectively move the
community towards its ultimate goal. In addition, a series of well-planned, interlinked
projects that can be shown to be progressing towards an overall goal will assist
communities in presenting a case for further funding commitments.
The importance of the language revival process being initiated by the community, or by
a member of the community, cannot be understated. Indeed, a language program that is
initiated by people outside the community, unless it gathers strong community support
and is tailored to meet the needs of the community — as opposed to the perceived needs
of the community — will be extremely unlikely to succeed in the long term (Hinton
2001a, p 5). Having said that, any language work carried out on endangered languages
is important and valuable. Many very successful language programs were begun by one
or two determined individuals from a community who gathered community support and
technical expertise along the way.
It is useful for those involved in language planning for language revival programs, to be
aware of the three types of planning discussed previously — status, acquisition and
corpus planning (Eastman 1983, p 4). That is, planners need to understand both the
sociocultural implications in status, acquisition and corpus planning, as well as the
practical considerations involved in acquisition and corpus planning — for example,
understanding what is involved in setting up a sound second-language learning
program, as well as considerations around what it might mean to standardise a language
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Language Planning in School-based Language Revival Programs
Page: 5
and what a practical and commonly agreed orthography might look like. In addition,
Amery (2000, p 36) discusses language revival from what he calls an ‘ecological
approach’, arguing that language revival is essentially a social process, and that it is
necessary to place a language within its wider social context. Language revival,
particularly a language reclamation program, transforms a language from a written
record to a ‘living, dynamic entity in the minds of people’ (Amery 2000, p 37).
A danger with the concept of language planning is that it might be seen to restrict the
requirement for plans to be tailored to meet the needs of each individual community,
since every community has a unique language issue (Ash et al. 2001, p 20). However,
there are some common steps that communities can follow on their way to developing a
language revival program for their language. Before beginning a program, a number of
questions need to be addressed to help language planners develop a clear picture of the
language’s oral, written and historical resources, as well as the number and age of
speakers, and the domains, if any, in which the language is currently used and/or
spoken. This will help determine what type of language revival program will best suit a
particular community situation, and will also determine specific goals that the
community will aim for (Amery 1995; 2000, p 36).
The need to understand the language environment from which communities come was
taken up by Hinton 2001a (pp 6–7), who produced a modified version of Fishman’s
(1991, in Hinton 2001a) eight steps for reversal of language shift. She emphasised that
these steps are not necessarily to be followed sequentially, and that some may happen
simultaneously. This has been reproduced below as an example of a useful model to
follow:
Steps
Action
Step 1
Language assessment and planning: Find out what the linguistic situation is in the
community. How many speakers are there? What are their ages? What other resources are
available on the language? What are the attitudes of speakers and non-speakers toward
language revitalisation? What are realistic goals for language revitalisation in this
community?
Step 2
If the language has no speakers: Use available materials to reconstruct the language and
develop language pedagogy …
Step 3
If the language has only elderly speakers: Document the language of the elderly speakers.
(This may also take place at the same time as other steps).
Step 4
Develop a second-language learning program for adults … These professional-age and
parent-age adult second-language learners will be important leaders in later steps.
Step 5
Redevelop or enhance cultural practices that support and encourage use of endangered
language at home and in public by first- and second-language speakers
Step 6
Develop intensive second-language programs for children, preferably with a component in
the schools. When possible, use the endangered language as the language of instruction …
Step 7
Use the language at home as the primary language of communication, so that it becomes the
first language of young children. Develop classes and support groups for parents to assist
them in the transition … .
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Language Planning in School-based Language Revival Programs
Page: 6
Step 8
Expand the use of the Indigenous language into broader local domains, including community
government, media, local commerce, and so on …
Step 9
Where possible, expand the language domains outside of the local community and into the
broader population to promote the language as one of wider communication, regional or
national government … .
There are many different types of language revival programs that are used by
communities, including school-based programs; language programs for children outside
of school; and adult language programs. Each type of program has advantages and
disadvantages associated with its use, but one crucial factor is that all language and
cultural programs need to work alongside each other, rather than compete with each
other, to support the overarching goal of language revival.
School-based language revival programs
School-based language revival programs form an important and valuable part of any
community language revival program, as it is essential for communities to have
supportive educational contexts to assist in the process of revitalising their languages
(Board of Studies 2003, p 6). There are different types of school-based language
programs, all of which have their advantages and their challenges, and which need to be
tailored to students’ linguistic backgrounds (Ministry of Education Western Australia
1992, p 10). In the Australian context, types of programs for school-based language
support include the four mentioned earlier in this paper (SA DETE 1999, p 19):
 first language maintenance and development, where the school supports ‘the use of
that language and extends its use into the wider world of schooling and Australian
society’
 second language learning, where the language is taught as a subject
 language revival, including revitalisation, renewal and reclamation programs
 language awareness, in which the vestiges of a language may be taught and/or
incorporated within an Aboriginal studies course.
In current school-based language programs in Australia, the overwhelming tendency has
been towards teaching the Indigenous language as part of a community culture and
language program that has been run out of a local school. In some states, including
South Australia and Western Australia, Indigenous languages have been integrated into
the school curriculum and are taught as a language other than English (LOTE). In NSW,
Indigenous languages now have their own Syllabus, the Aboriginal Languages K–10
Syllabus, which sits alongside the other language syllabuses in the school system.
The development of a separate syllabus for Indigenous languages is an extremely
important step, particularly in terms of status planning, as it shows a commitment by
education authorities to include and value Indigenous languages within the mainstream
school curriculum. The languages are thus given greater prominence and increased
status within both the Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. Furthermore,
Amery (2000, p 230), in describing the reclamation of the Kaurna language in South
Australia, suggested that ‘[b]y means of its use in school-based and tertiary language
programs, and its use in renaming the landscape and institutions, the Kaurna language is
also seen as a tool … for reconciliation’. The inclusion of the language within the
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Language Planning in School-based Language Revival Programs
Page: 7
school environment can lead to a perception in the community that their language and
culture are valued by the education system in general and by the school in particular
(Mercurio & Amery 1996, p 29).
The development of strong and sustainable partnerships between the school and
community, which is essential for the introduction of Indigenous languages into the
school framework, can help to promote better relations between schools and
communities. Partnerships that are aimed at developing community ownership of
culturally appropriate programs and that encourage cultural awareness and promote
concepts of inclusion and respect are essential if the program is to succeed at the local
level (DECS 2004, p 11). In addition, the introduction of an Indigenous language into
the school can also mean an increased presence of Indigenous people in school
classrooms as both employees and volunteers.
Including Indigenous language and culture as part of the school curriculum can also
have a beneficial effect on Indigenous students. The promotion of language and culture
can help increase students’ self-esteem, particularly in front of their peers (Frigo &
Adams 2002). Furthermore, it can help to engage Indigenous learners with a subject that
holds much interest and promotes their self-confidence. Children bring with them to
school particular ways of knowing and learning, and programs that build on their
cultural knowledge and oral language skills can help with other areas of learning, such
as literacy and numeracy skills (Frigo & Adams 2002; Munns et al. n.d). It can also help
with the retention of Indigenous students in the school system (Bourke et al. 2000). In
the 2004 pilot project for the Board of Studies Aboriginal Language Project,4 one of the
major benefits highlighted by the Aboriginal Language Teams was the actual and
potential effect that the introduction of the Indigenous language of the area, as part of
the school curriculum, had (in the schools in which a language program was already
operational) and would have (where the program was not yet running) on their students.
They reported on the increase in self-esteem and the pride that students felt in their
linguistic and cultural heritage.
In terms of acquisition planning in school-based language programs, the main aim is for
students to get to a level where they can develop a degree of conversational ability
(Hinton 2001a, p 7). Quite often the use of language within the classroom will flow to
the school grounds and to the community, as the children incorporate what they are
learning into their daily lives. This is where it becomes vital that other communitybased language programs are in operation to support the acquisition of language within
school-based language revival programs. In addition, if the teaching methodology is
sound then a school program can both help a student move towards fluency in the
language, and create an appreciation for the language, the culture and the process of
language revival.
Finally, incorporating the language into a formal education system necessitates the
development of written documentation and teaching resources in the language (Fasold
1984). Once teaching programs have been developed then there is a possibility that
resources can also be shared between schools, and that mentoring relationships can be
4
Three school and community groups took part in a pilot project aimed at the implementation of the
Aboriginal Languages K–10 Syllabus www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Language Planning in School-based Language Revival Programs
Page: 8
developed between those schools with language programs and those without. In addition,
it is extremely important that school-based programs can link into other communitybased programs. One danger that must be managed within school programs is that they
can become too focused on individual schools and forget to link in with other community
initiatives, and even with other schools. Resource sharing is very important for school
programs that are short on time, money and expertise. Furthermore, the closer the school
project is to a larger community language revival program, the more necessary it is for
schools to be aware of issues and events at the state and national level, even simply
knowing where to find resources important for language revival work such as the
Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) and, in
NSW, the Aboriginal Languages Research and Resource Centre (ALRRC).
It would be misleading, however, to simply state that school-based language programs,
as stand-alone programs, will either strengthen or help to maintain Indigenous
languages (Mercurio & Amery 1996, p 26). As ever, the issue is far more complex, and
there are particular challenges that school-based language programs are facing.
While it is exciting to see the inclusion of Indigenous languages within the Australian
education system, and a huge step forward in the status of Indigenous languages, it is
also worth remembering the mainstream context in which the school system operates.
This has implications for the way in which languages will be taught and the belief
systems that will be imparted. There is a general tendency for current pedagogy to
integrate Indigenous languages into the current education system rather than allow the
development of alternative frameworks for the teaching of Indigenous languages within
schools. This means that the school culture and values will inevitably influence and be
integrated into the way language is taught and learned. As in the development and
sustainability of all school-based programs, school principals play a critical role in
determining and fostering school culture and the successful introduction of Indigenous
languages into the school is highly dependent on their ongoing support. For this reason
also, school-based language instruction ideally should not be the only form of
instruction, as it can only play a limited role in teaching language and culture (Hinton
2001a, p 7). It is extremely important, then, that school-based language revival
programs incorporate as much of the Indigenous culture, framework and traditional
objects as possible within the classroom environment.
There are other challenges for school-based language programs in regards to acquisition
planning. A school language program, for example, may not include enough exposure to
the language to allow fluency to develop (Sims 2001, pp 69–70). An important factor in
successful language programs is to provide students with access to either native
speakers in or from the language’s country of origin. In the case of endangered
languages, however, there may not be such a community of speakers (Hinton 2001a,
p 7). Both of these issues further highlight the notion that in order to support Indigenous
language development in children, it is critical that there is support from parents and
care-givers. It also recognises the importance of care-givers being able to access parallel
language development opportunities (Walsh 2002, p 10).
While, as previously noted, the school program’s need for written materials and
teaching resources is essential to sustain real language learning, it also provides
challenges. For example, it raises issues that the community will need to grapple with
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Language Planning in School-based Language Revival Programs
Page: 9
and make decisions on, such as the drive to standardise the language forms — which
arises out of the linguistic process of developing a written grammar and orthography.
This can be a very sensitive issue and has the potential to be the cause of disagreement
within the community, which can be extremely destructive for a language program
(Bobaljik & Pensalfini 1996, p 3). The very lack of commercially developed products
and materials suitable for teaching Indigenous languages is cause enough for many
schools to not implement a language program. Resource development and programming
can also be an issue, as both activities are extremely time-consuming for teachers and it
can be very difficult to fit this in around the other demands of their jobs. These factors
need to be taken into account when developing a program, as many Indigenous
language programs will need to be developed from scratch. Even where other
community language programs have been running for some time, the programs will
need to be rewritten so that they reflect the outcomes of the Syllabus. It would be useful
for schools to be able to factor these kinds of ‘start-up’ costs into a language revival
project plan.
The introduction of Indigenous language syllabuses, such as the Aboriginal Languages
K–10 Syllabus (Syllabus) in NSW, also raises some challenges of its own. On the one
hand, as mentioned previously it significantly raises the status of Indigenous languages
within both the Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities. It also provides a
rigorous, cohesive and recognised framework for the teaching of Indigenous languages.
On the other hand, it brings to the foreground a number of issues that will need to be
dealt with at both a community level and a government policy level.
When making a decision about what type of school-based language program to
implement, for example, the community, in conjunction with the school, will first need
to determine whether they are actually able to develop a program that meets the specific
language proficiency outcomes of the Syllabus. This may involve some long-term
planning and goal setting in which, for example, the community decides to opt for a
community language program that is run out of the school, with the eventual goal being
the implementation of the language program as part of the Syllabus. Communities
should explore, with the school, a range of other options like these and decide on the
language revival program that is right for them, and for the amount and type of
resources that the language has.
The introduction of the Syllabus in schools calls for Indigenous community control and
their active involvement in the development of school language programs. As
mentioned elsewhere here, this can be a way for schools to foster better relations with
communities and for sustainable bonds to develop between the school and the
community. However, there are challenges involved with this. One difficulty can lie in
ascertaining precisely who comprises ‘the community’, and how to be sure that the
community is both adequately and actively represented. For example, ASSPA5
committees may be a good place to start, but for various reasons may not be fully
representative of the community. It is a good idea for those wanting to implement the
5
At the time of writing Aboriginal Student Support and Parent Awareness (ASSPA) committees were
still functioning within schools. While they may no longer be present, the point remains relevant – it is
better to check with a number of Indigenous organisations within the area.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Language Planning in School-based Language Revival Programs
Page: 10
Syllabus in their local school to approach as many Indigenous organisations as possible
within the area.
Once the decision has been made to implement the Syllabus, there are some further
challenges to overcome, including finding appropriate people to teach the language in
the school. Community language teachers need to have appropriate cultural knowledge
and language proficiency, as well as the support of the community to teach the
language. Some may also have teaching experience and/or qualifications, although this
is not strictly necessary as, in cases where the community language teacher is not
qualified as a teacher, he/she will be required to teach in a team-teaching environment
with a qualified teacher. In many cases, the team-teacher may be qualified as a teacher,
but not necessarily as a language teacher (primary school teachers, for example, are
required to teach every subject to their classes).
It is extremely important for schools and communities to put together a team of people
who will work with each other to develop and implement the program (Board of Studies
2003; Amery 2000, p 165; SA DETE 1999). This team needs to include Indigenous
community members with links to the community and appropriate knowledge of
language and culture, teachers with a good understanding of language teaching
principles and practices, and people with linguistic knowledge of Indigenous languages
to assist with, amongst other things, the more technical, or corpus planning, aspects of
language revival work. A language team can work with the community to assist the
overall language planning process, including being involved in advocacy and lobbying
to ensure support for language revitalisation within the community.
Policy and Funding Issues for School-based Language Programs
In Australia, Indigenous communities around the country are working to reclaim their
languages and receive national recognition of their unique place, both culturally and
linguistically, within Australia. There is much evidence of this, including an increased
demand on organisations that fund language programs, such as the Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) and the Department of Communication,
Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA). In addition, organisations such as
FATSIL increasingly have a greater advocacy role than previously, as the demand for
language work increases. Part of this role for FATSIL has been the ongoing discussions
with initially ATSIC and later DCITA about the need to develop a national policy
framework for Australia’s Indigenous languages.6 Discussions have also been held with
the Department of Science and Training and the state and territory educational
jurisdictions as part of the development of the 2005–2008 National Languages
Statement and Plan.7 This statement and plan was developed for the Ministerial Council
on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs (MCEETYA) and will provide
commonwealth funds to support school language education. These discussions have
6
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) was disbanded by the Commonwealth
in 2003. Its work was replaced by mainstream government agencies such as the Department of
Communications, the Arts and Information Technology (DCITA)
7
See www.mceetya.edu.au/pdf/languageeducation.pdf
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Language Planning in School-based Language Revival Programs
Page: 11
meant that specific strategies have been agreed to support the development and
enhancement of Indigenous languages across all jurisdictions.
While there is some indication in recent years that the Australian nation has begun to
recognise and support such efforts, the pressures facing Indigenous languages remain
strong (McConvell & Thieberger 2001, p 1). Whatever type of planning is used to
develop a language revival program, in most cases the language problem to be solved
does not exist in isolation within a particular community. Instead, it is directly related to
and often caused by the ‘political, economic, scientific, social, cultural and/or religious
situation’ around it (Karam 1974, p 108, in Cooper 1989, p 35). That is, language
planning takes place in a complex social, political and linguistic framework, and it is
within this context that language planning policies need to be made.
A background to language policy in Australia
In the period up to 1987 Australia’s policy-making activities with regard to language
tended to be implicit rather than explicit, with the intended goal being ‘universal
English monolingualism modelled on southern British norms’ (Lo Bianco 1997, p.107).
In 1987, the Commonwealth Government introduced Australia’s first explicit language
policy, the National Languages Policy (Lo Bianco 1987). According to Lo Bianco
(1997, p 107), the primary reason that Australia’s government felt comfortable in
introducing a national languages policy was the absolute dominance of English as the
implicitly recognised national language of Australia.
Lo Bianco (2001, p 14) argues that ultimately the development of the 1987 national
language policy came about because of a strong alliance between language groups
advocating for language access rights, the teaching of LOTEs and the maintenance of
Indigenous languages (Wren 1997, p 20). This alliance included ethnic and Indigenous
community groups as well as language academics and professionals. The group’s
effectiveness was also boosted by an economic imperative that added trade
representatives to the list of those demanding the teaching of LOTEs, particularly Asian
languages (Lo Bianco 2001, p.v).
Increasingly, the language used in policy documents and in general policy discourse
began to emphasise the national benefits of cultivating what were now being seen as the
linguistic ‘resources’, as opposed to linguistic ‘problem’, of Australia in terms of
educational benefits, cultural benefits, and more and more in terms of the economic
benefits represented by linguistic diversity (Lo Bianco 1997, p 109). This period of
language policy-making activity, from the late 1960s until the development of the first
national languages policy in 1987, was characterised by a ‘genuinely progressive and
pluralistic’ (Lo Bianco 1997, p 110) outlook from the federal governments of the day.
However, in 1990, the then Federal Minister for Education, Mr Dawkins, released a
Green Paper which outlined a new national policy on language and literacy. This paper
heralded a return to the narrow, reductionist policies of old, with its emphasis on
English and the acquisition of standard English literacy. Furthermore, it concentrated
almost exclusively on school-based language maintenance programs, creating a huge
concern for Indigenous community-based workers (Nicholls 2001, p 339). Once again,
a coalition of language interest groups came together and were able to successfully
lobby the government to ‘defeat its worst excesses’ (Wren 1997, p 20).
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Language Planning in School-based Language Revival Programs
Page: 12
The resulting language policy, however, the 1991 White Paper Australia’s Language:
The Australian Language and Literacy Policy, maintained its emphasis on English-only
monolingualism. It also grouped Indigenous languages alongside other English
language programs such as English as a second language, English as a second dialect
and English literacy programs (Nicholls 2001, p 339). This move denied the unique
position of Australian Indigenous languages as endangered languages and attempted to
reduce the issue to simply being one of a number of equity issues. Since 1991, there
have been several developments in language policy provisions, including the Australian
Indigenous Languages Framework (1996), a national curriculum for schools and a first
for Australia.
Some policy issues for language revival programs in NSW
In NSW, the introduction of the NSW Aboriginal Languages Policy in 2004, the first of
its kind, has been a breakthrough for Indigenous languages. In it, the State Government
states that every government agency and government-funded agency needs to consider
assisting the revitalisation of Indigenous languages, and to work in partnership with
Indigenous communities to achieve this. The focus areas of the Policy include:
 language programs in Aboriginal communities
 language programs in the educational system
 language programs in gaols and detention centres
 Aboriginal languages in the broader community.
The Policy is a useful tool with which Indigenous communities and schools can lever
funding and partnership opportunities for language revival programs – this is an
important issue for language revival programs in NSW, and indeed, throughout
Australia.
How to access funding for language revival programs is a major issue for communities
in general. Community and school groups together often experience much confusion
when it comes to finding out about funding for school-based language programs. For
example, there is some funding available specifically for school language programs
through the NSW Department of Education and Training. The Department of
Aboriginal Affairs also has language funding available for Indigenous communities
endeavouring to begin and/or continue a language program through the NSW
Aboriginal Languages Research and Resource Centre (ALRRC), which also provides
valuable support in the form of information, research and resources.8 The former
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) also had funding available,
which is now channelled through the Commonwealth Department of Communication,
Information Technology and the Arts (DCITA). For those not used to the maze of
government bureaucracy it can be difficult to negotiate their way through these
organisations. There is a need, then, for clearer communication between government
departments and agencies, and the people who are applying for funding. Moreover,
funding is often not guaranteed for more than a year at a time, which has serious
implications for developing sustainable language programs.
Other policy and planning issues in NSW include the provision of training for
community language teachers. For example, the implementation of the Syllabus in
8
See www.alrrc.nsw.gov.au
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Language Planning in School-based Language Revival Programs
Page: 13
NSW schools already necessitates the existence of qualified Indigenous language
teachers, which in turn presupposes the existence of tertiary programs in Indigenous
languages. This issue of providing teacher training for Indigenous language teachers is
something that the NSW Department of Education and Training will need to seriously
consider.
Additional concerns around this issue have been raised by communities and schools,
and include the provision of professional development opportunities for existing
community language teachers. Many do not have professional teaching qualifications,
but have nonetheless been teaching Indigenous languages in schools for a number of
years, and are currently among the most qualified to continue doing so. It is also clear
that, while most people encourage the implementation of the Syllabus in schools where
possible, some concern is felt by existing community language teachers that the
introduction of the Syllabus and subsequently of qualified Indigenous language teachers
into schools will ultimately make them redundant. Provisions need to be made in such
cases to protect the positions of such people. Language planning, particularly the
research stage of planning, would assist communities and schools to come to grips with
some of these issues and bring them into the mainstream policy arena.
Conclusion
Language planning is a valuable and useful tool for the revival of Indigenous languages
for two main reasons. Firstly, in a socio-linguistic approach to language planning there
is recognition of the fact that language issues are often connected to a social issue of
some description (Fasold 1984, p 250). In this situation, language planning becomes a
tool with which to implement social policy aimed at the improvement of the issue.
Secondly, language planning can also be used to develop and implement successful
language revival programs by providing opportunities for the community to research,
plan and set achievable goals for the program.
As Fishman (1971, in Hinton 2001a) points out, it is most often the users of the
dominant language who play a role in language planning and may be in a position to use
it as a means of social and political control. This has been very clear in the history of
language planning in Australia. However, from the number of language revival
programs in operation around Australia, there is considerable evidence for widespread
support in Indigenous communities for some degree of language revival work. A
significant amount of this work is concentrated within schools, particularly in the form
of community language programs that are run out of schools. There are both positive
aspects and challenges associated with school-based language revival programs, and it
is extremely important that school-based programs should not be viewed as standing
alone, but that they are closely linked to and supported by other community language
programs.
In NSW, the introduction of the NSW Aboriginal Languages Policy and the Aboriginal
Languages K–10 Syllabus has meant that Indigenous languages have an increased
presence in language policy and planning debates. The Syllabus, in particular, has raised
a number of issues that Indigenous communities and state and federal governments will
both need to address, including practical issues of funding for language programs,
Indigenous teacher training and the future role of current community language teachers.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Language Planning in School-based Language Revival Programs
Page: 14
The NSW Aboriginal Languages Policy has also raised within the public eye the social
issue of Indigenous peoples’ rights to be supported in reviving and learning their own
languages. It is important that those involved in language revival programs build on the
foundation of the Policy to broaden public interest in Indigenous language revival and
to develop practical and sustainable partnerships for the long-term support of
Indigenous language revival programs.
References
Amery R 1995. ‘Learning and reviving a language from historical sources’, in N
Thieberger (ed), Paper and Talk. Aboriginal Studies Press for the Australian
Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, Canberra.
Amery R 2000. Warrabarna Kaurna! Reclaiming an Australian Language, Swets and
Zeitlinger, Lisse, The Netherlands.
Ash A, Fermino JLD and Hale K 2001. ‘Diversity in Local Language Maintenance and
Restoration: A Reason for Optimism’, in L Hinton & K Hale (eds), The Green
Book of Language Revitalisation in Practice. Academic Press, San Diego.
Board of Studies NSW 2003. Aboriginal Languages K–10 Syllabus. Board of Studies
NSW, June 2003, Sydney.
Bobaljik JD and Pensalfini R 1996. ‘Introduction’, in JD Bobaljik, R Pensalfini & L
Storto (eds), Papers on Endangerment and the Maintenance of Linguistic
Diversity: The MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. MITWPL, Cambridge, MA.
Bourke CJ, Rigby K and Burden J 2000. Better Practice in School Attendance:
Improving the School Attendance of Indigenous Students. Commonwealth
Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, July 2000, Canberra.
Cooper RL 1989. Language Planning and Social Change. Press Syndicate of the
University of Cambridge.
Department of Education & Children’s Services (DECS) 2004. Arabana: Years R–10.
Department of Education & Children’s Services, Government of South Australia.
Department of Education, Training and Employment (DETE) 1999. Reviving
Language: Warranna Purruttiappendi, Tumbelin Tungarar, Renewal and
Reclamation Programs for Indigenous Languages in Schools. Department of
Education, Training and Employment South Australia.
Dorian NC 1987. The value of language maintenance efforts which are unlikely to
succeed. International Journal of Socio-Linguisitics, Vol. 68, pp 57–67.
Eastman C 1983. Language Planning: An Introduction. Chandler and Sharp, San
Francisco.
Fasold, R 1984. ‘Language planning and standardisation’, in R Fasold (ed), The
Sociolinguistics of Society. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Language Planning in School-based Language Revival Programs
Page: 15
Frigo T and Adams I 2002. Diversity and learning in the early years of school.
Proceedings of the AARE Annual Conference, Brisbane, 1–5 December.
Hinton L 2001a. ‘Language revitalisation: An overview’, in L Hinton & K Hale (eds)
The Green Book of Language Revitalisation in Practice. Academic Press, San
Diego.
Hinton L 2001b. ‘Language planning’, in L Hinton & K Hale (eds), The Green Book of
Language Revitalisation in Practice. Academic Press, San Diego.
Hinton L and Hale K (eds) 2001. The Green Book of Language Revitalisation in
Practice. Academic Press, San Diego.
Lo Bianco J 1987. National Policy on Languages. Australian Government Publishing
Service, Canberra.
Lo Bianco J 1997. ‘English and pluralistic policies: The case of Australia’, in W
Egginton & H Wren (eds), Language Policy: Dominant English, Pluralist
Challenges. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Language Australia Ltd,
Canberra.
Lo Bianco J 2001. ‘From policy to anti-policy: How fear of language rights took policymaking out of community hands’, in J Lo Bianco & R Wickert (eds), Australian
Policy Activism in Language and Literacy. Language Australia Ltd, Melbourne.
McConvell P and Thieberger N 2001. State of Indigenous Languages in Australia.
Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra.
Mercurio A and Amery R 1996. ‘Can senior secondary studies help to maintain and
strengthen Australia’s Indigenous languages?’ in JD Bobaljik, R Pensalfini & L
Storto (eds), Papers on Endangerment and the Maintenance of Linguistic
Diversity: The MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. MITWPL, Cambridge MA.
Ministry of Education Western Australia 1992. Framework for the Teaching of
Aboriginal Languages in Primary Schools. Ministry of Education, Western
Australia and Commonwealth Department of Employment, Education and
Training.
Munns G, Lawson J and Mootz D n.d. Aboriginal Literacy Research Project Report to
the NSW Board of Studies Aboriginal Learners and English 7–10. Office of the
Board of Studies NSW [Online]
www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/aboriginal_research/index.html
Nicholls C 2001. ‘Reconciled to what? Reconciliation and the Northern Territory’s
bilingual education program 1973–1998’, in J Lo Bianco & R Wickert (eds),
Australian Policy Activism in Language and Literacy. Language Australia Ltd,
Melbourne.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Language Planning in School-based Language Revival Programs
Page: 16
Sims CP 2001. ‘Native Language Planning: A pilot process in the Acoma Pueblo
Community’, in L Hinton & K Hale (eds), The Green Book of Language
Revitalisation in Practice. Academic Press, San Diego.
Walsh M 2002. Teaching NSW’s Indigenous Languages: Lessons from Elsewhere.
Office of the Board of Studies NSW. [Online].
www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au/aboriginal_research/index.html
Wren H 1997. ‘Making a difference in language policy agendas’, in W Egginton & H
Wren (eds), Language Policy: Dominant English, Pluralist Challenges. John
Benjamins Publishing Company, Language Australia Ltd, Canberra.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
Language Planning in School-based Language Revival Programs
Page: 17