ABSTRACT - Language on the Move

Report
Linguistic Diversity and Social Inclusion (in Australia)
A Language Planning Perspective
Richard B. Baldauf Jr. & M. Obaid Hamid
School of Education
University of Queensland, Australia
Name of presentation Month 2009
ABSTRACT
Language planning had as one of its foundational concerns in the
1960s the way language serves to reproduce social inequality, and
this continues to be the focus of more recent developments. This
paper provides a brief overview of the discipline, the disciplinary
approaches, and the extent to which linguistic diversity and social
inclusion are being addressed in language planning research at
present, both more generally, and in Australia. From this perspective,
the paper focuses on language planning for both dominant (English)
and non-dominant (minority) languages in education and other social
domains. Specific attention will be given to issues around medium of
instruction (overseas) and English language variation in Australia and
their potential impact on language policy development. The paper
highlights that whether language planning focuses on majority
languages, minority languages or language variations, the
relationships between linguistic diversity and social inclusion are
complex and a desirable achievement in diversity and inclusivity has
to engage both macro policy and community agency.
Name of presentation Month 2009
INTRODUCTION – 1
Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997
…language planning has developed in a dichotomous manner similar to
the two aspects of de Saussure’s (1916/1959) linguistics with its equivalents of langue and parole. Just as linguistics for much of its disciplinary
history has concentrated on descriptive form and analysis, langue,
language planning has concentrated on technical solutions to language
problems, language planning. …Like linguistics [which recently has
begun to explore parole through discourse], language planning needs to
think more about the relationship between langue and parole by
examining the discourse of language politics and society or the more
informal but powerful political and social aspects of language policy.
In practical terms this dichotomy in the literature has tended to mean
that only lip service has been given to the notion that political, social and
economic decisions can be framed as language planning constructs.
Such decisions are often viewed as being in the hands of people outside
the language planning process… [There is a need] to examine these
assumptions which have guided conventional approaches to language
planning and make explicit the embedding context and the dilemmas
these practices pose for language planners and other sociolinguists.
Name of presentation Month 2009
INTRODUCTION - 2
• Quote from Baldauf & Kaplan (1997)
suggests the disjuncture between linguistic
and sociological perspectives is long standing
• LPP is a crossover field, quintessential ApLx
requiring theory & practice
• Cambridge Handbook for Language Policy;
36 polity studies (in CILP; Multilingual
Matters; Routledge); Conference themes
indicate language & social issues are being
addressed.
Name of presentation Month 2009
Introduction 3 - Definitions
• Defined as systematic, future oriented change
in language code (corpus planning), use (status
planning), learning and speaking (language-ineducation planning) and/or language promotion
(prestige planning) undertaken by some
organisation or individual
• Language policy vs language planning
• Language policy is a political process; planning
is about ‘non-judgmental’ implementation.
• This dichotomy may lead to disjuncture.
Name of presentation Month 2009
Introduction 4 - Foundations
• As a practice dates back to the Bible
(shibboleth), ancient Greece & Rome, or
China – Chinese characters
• Practical & philosophical roots in the West
Napoleonic France (Wright, 2012) and birth of
nation states (Gal & Irving, 1995).
• Notion of one nation / one language
Name of presentation Month 2009
Disciplinary History 1
• Impetus – break up of colonial empires after
WW II
• New nations need linguistic input for choice of
national language(s). Ford Foundation
• Centre for Applied Linguistics & British Council
promote English to develop human capital
(Hamid, 2010; Kaplan, 2010; Phillipson, 1992)
• Most powerful nations now promote their
languages.
• Societal betterment; Optimism in development,
modernisation & progress misplaced.
Name of presentation Month 2009
Disciplinary History 2
• By 1970s, LPP not unique to developing
nations – macro problems of migration and
linguistic minorities.
• 1980s disillusionment with the field
(Bloomaert, 1996; Williams 1992)
• 21st Century revival of interest – language
ecology, language rights, place of English
and other languages; local issues
Name of presentation Month 2009
Disciplinary History 3 - Australia
• Halcyon days of 1980 and 1990s
• National Policy on Languages (Lo Bianco, 1987)
• Australia’s Language: Australian Language and
Literacy Policy (DEET, 1991)
• NLLIA & AMES at Macquarie
• Waning of interest with the election of the
Howard government
• Continued interest in language and culture
teaching, and assessment persists
Name of presentation Month 2009
Approaches to Language Planning 1
• From the 1970s there was interest in
theorising the field Cambridge Handbook of
Language Policy (Spolsky 2012a) latest
• ApLx handbooks (Kaplan, 2010; Spolsky &
Hult, 2008)
• Journals
• Current issues in Language Planning
• Language Policy
• Language problems & Language Planning
• Need to do more to relate theory & practice
(Kaplan & Baldauf, 2007)
Name of presentation Month 2009
Approaches to Language Planning 2
Baldauf (2012) has suggested there are four
approaches to Language planning:
1. Classical approach (Haugen, 1983; Baldauf &
Kaplan, 1997, 2003; Hornberger, 2006)
2. Language management approach (Jernudd &
Neustupný, 1987; Nekvapil, 2011; Neustupný &
Nekvapil, 2003; Nekvapil & Sherman, 2009)
3. Domain approach (Fishman, 1972; Spolsky, 2004,
2009; Shohamy, 2006)
4. Critical approaches (Pennycook, 1992; Phillipson,
1992, 2012; Tollefson, 2000, 2006; Ricento, 2000)
Name of presentation Month 2009
Approaches to Language Planning:
Australia
•
Research exists from all traditions, but there
has been / is a focus on domain related work
•
Language testing
•
Aboriginal languages
•
Community languages
•
School languages
•
English for additional learners
Name of presentation Month 2009
LPP, Linguistic Diversity & Social Inclusion
• LPP as a discipline has been concerned with
linguistic diversity & inclusion.
• Positivist classical LPP saw inclusion as affecting
nation building and intra-national communication
• Subsequent linguistic ecology approaches focus on
linguistic diversity, to enable all people to be
included in the linguistic ecology.
• Not everyone is happy with this approach – push for
English language education
• Diversity occurs not only between languages, but
within them – SE vs WE paradigms
Name of presentation Month 2009
Issues for LPP: Implications for diversity
and inclusion
Six key issues LPP is addressing:
• Migration
• Re-emergence of polities / supra states
• Deconstructing the monolingual ideology
• Micro language planning
• Agency and language power
• Medium of instruction
Name of presentation Month 2009
Conclusions
• Language planning is a vibrant disciplinary
stream – some progress in spanning the gap
between language and diversity and inclusion
• A more critical stance is needed, and alternate
ways of thinking are needed as language issues
evolve.
• As Pennycook (2010) indicated while we have
become more critical, local and context
embedded, we need to seek alternate directions
for renewal.
Name of presentation Month 2009
THANK YOU
[email protected] & [email protected]
Name of presentation Month 2009
Name of presentation Month 2009

similar documents