Language Policy and Planning is an effort to influence ways of speaking
practice within a society including government. Language Policy and Planning occurs because of a thought that newly independent states need to find their
own identities, improve their education standard and economic growth. Once the
states’ needs are reached, this will give same opportunity for the whole
society to participate in their government and receive service from their
government.
Stages of Language Planning and Policy are :
- Status planning :
a. Codification. Characteristics or criteria of a
"good" language are established.
b. Standardization. A unified variety of the language is
established, if necessary.
- Language Status : a concept of language prestige and language function. Four common attributes :
a. Language origin.
b. Degree of standardization. The extent of a formal set
that define the “correct” usage.
c. Juridical status
d. Vitality. The ratio the language is used in total
population.
- Corpus planning :
a. Elaboration or graphization. Any variety of developments, including expansion of
vocabulary, expansion of stylistic repertoire, and creation of type fonts,
allows the language to function in a greater range of circumstances.
b. Cultivation. The establishment of arbiters, such as dictionaries
or language academies, maintains and advances the status of the language.
c. Modernization. A form of language planning that occurs when a language
needs to expand its resources to meet functions.
- Acquisition planning. A type of language planning in which a national, state or local government system aims to influence aspects of language, such as language status, distribution and literacy through education.
When the linguists have to gather the data for the
programs, they prefer using sociolinguistic approach as the ideal method because
they would work with community as whole to analyze the language attitude and
use in a very large population.
By the 1980s and part of the 1990s, LPP programs
disappeared because of some failure, lack of interest, resources or political importance and a critic. Luke said in his paper that LPP was worsened the old
problems and creating new ones because the LPP avoid directly addressing larger
social and political matters within which language change, use and development,
and indeed language planning itself are embedded.
In 1992, Tollefson introduced two major approaches to LPP :
the neoclassical and the historical-structural. The neoclassical approach tends
to emphasize the rational and individualistic nature of choices. The
historical-structural approach would then aim to ‘examine the historical basis
of policies and to make explicit the mechanisms by which policy decisions serve
or undermine particular political and economic interests’.
The major differences of these approaches are :
- The unit of analysis employed.
Neoclassical
: individual choices
Historical-structural :
relationship between group
- The role of the historical perspective.
Neoclassical
: interested in current language situation
Historical-structural :
emphasizes the role of socio-historical.
- Criteria for evaluating plans and policies.
Neoclassical
: policies are evaluated in terms of how efficiently they achieve their goals.
Historical-structural :
more sensitive to issue of domination, exploitation and oppression.
- The role of social scientist.
Neoclassical : the social scientist must and can approach language problem in a neutral
manner.
Historical-structural :
political stances as inescapable.
Tollefson assumed that the
linguists should pay more attention to the historical-structural approach because
by knowing the historical basic of policies, it would be easier for them to be
more aware that policies making may reflect the dominant group and may work
again achieving broader distribution of social and economic resources.
Renewing LPP
Nowdays, LPP is always going to be intertwined with the advancing of
specific interests, linguists were able to engage in various LPP-related
activities with a clearer appreciation of their roles and responsibilities.
Scientific objectivity, nowdays, arises from the linguists using their knowledge
about sociolinguistic and the ways which linguistic and non linguistic variable
interact, so as to better advise the client. There also a case where the
linguist form a strong attachment to a community that leads to a personal goal
and desire to help improve its wellbeing. In such a case, the linguist is
essentially acting as not just expert consultant, but also as advocate.
The use of LPP approach will be a realistic, practical approach in
situations of severe language attrition where it is most probably impossible to
build a new speaker community.
LPP is very complex because it covers from the smallest to the largest community,
from individual, group,up to the state size community. Therefore, the use of
LPP should be distinguished based on which kind of community a language
practice is used. LPP needs to be distinguished between the language practice
af a community, the language belief or ideology and any efforts to influence
the practices. The effort to influence the practice usually cannot be found in community
and serves as “default policy”
In linguistic
variation, linguists and native speaker can imagine themselves and at the same
time the view is not present in representing linguistic difference so that the representation will influence their purpose in a phenomenon happens.
Beside status and corpus planning, discourse planning is also added in
Language Policy and Planning because discourse refers to the influence and
effect on people’s mental stages, behaviours and system through the linguistically
mediated ideological workings of institutions, disciplines, and diverse social
formations.
Discourse permits contest and negotiation, therefore planning discourse can
be seen as the efforts of institutions and diverse interest to shape, direct
and influence the conclusion of the practices and patterns. This suggestion about discourse planning
helps the LPP to be more appreciative of the fact that there is no
interest-free policy. A discourse orientation highlights the ways in whic
proble are framed, the interests served in the framings and the alternative
framings..
The data can be gathered from the analysis of narratives, ethnographic
approaches and histoically sensitive comparison, materials about the study of
LPP, corpus and status planning and discourse planning.
The data gathered via the analysis of narratives, ethnographic approaches,
and historically sensitive comparisons,
all came to be considered relevant to the study of LPP, corpus and
status planning, and discourse planning. Then they will be drawn together with
backgrounds in economics, political philosophy, political science, social
theory, as well as linguistics, are slowly becoming more regularly produced.
In doing Language Policy and Planning, there are many challenges :
1. Find ways of addressing multiculturalism. In multiculturalism, there will
be a movement of language rights for each group. This is bcause the group
grants specific forms of protection and considerations on the basis of their
associated language. The native speakers of the language will argue that their
language is their identity and a mark of cultural heritage.
2. To take better account of the fact that traditional notions of ethnicity
and nation do not fit easily with the multilingual dynamics of late modern
societies, which are increasingly characterized by a pervasive culture of
consumerism, where ‘people define themselves through the messages they transmit
to others through the goods and practices that they possess and display’.
3. Global migration and the related issue of ensuring the wellbeing and
dignity of individuals as they move across the globe in search of a better
life. The language policy should be fair to those who are in need of help.
Therefore, when dealing with foreigners, they are given an apportunity to
choose what language they want to use.
The Future of Language Policy and Planning
LPP should start rethinking the ontological nature of language, and
seriously evaluate the material implications. For too long, LPP has worked with
a relatively convenient conception of language as a stable and identifiably
bounded entity corresponding to established language names, despite being aware
that this overlooks ‘the problematic history of the construction of such
languages’.
The concern of the future of LPP is not only creating new names for existing
object but also names for the new objects. The new names usually derived from English words
and then combine them with the already existing language in a state. LPP also
should pay attention to a specifi language that will be categorized under a
particular label and its impact toward the society. To reach this goal, the
linguists should engage policy-makers and the general public. Revaluation of language,
community and identity is important parts in this field. Not only that, the
linguist need to find a strategy in positioning themselves as participants in
language ideological debates.
