Presentation on theme: "Name of presentation Month 2009 Linguistic Diversity and Social Inclusion (in Australia) A Language Planning Perspective Richard B. Baldauf Jr. & M. Obaid."— Presentation transcript:
Name of presentation Month 2009 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 Saussures (1916/1959) linguistics with its equiva- lents 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-in- education 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) 21 st 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) Australias 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.