What is the content of language policy?

According to Fishman‟s definition of LP, both corpus planning (the structure of the language itself) and status planning (language use and choice) are main foci of language policy. Cooper

(1990:33) also mentions language teaching as an object of policy making, that is planning for language acquisition. Educational linguists and politicians are both concerned with language choices and the resources to be deployed (Spolsky & Shohamy 2000:5). They identify two main kinds of language policy and planning: corpus planning and status planning which revolves around acquisition and diffusion of language(s) (Spolsky & Shohamy 2000:7; Cooper 1990:58).

2.2.2.1 Corpus planning

Corpus planning refers to activities such as coining new terms, reforming spelling, and

adopting a new script. The standardisation of the Chinese language is an example of corpus planning (see 3.2.1). It refers, in brief, to the creation of new forms, the modification of old

ones, or the selection from alternative forms in a spoken or written code. It consists of the language cultivation, reform, and standardisation mentioned by Haugen (1969; see 2.2 and the reference to selection, codification and elaboration of linguistic features above).

2.2.2.2 Status planning

Status planning refers to the allocation of languages and their importance or role in relation to other language varieties in national or regional contexts, as well as their use for functions such as the medium of instruction, official language and vehicle of mass communication (Cooper 1990:32). According to Fishman (1979), „authoritative allocation of resources‟ positions the specific language or languages at national level. For instance, Mandarin Chinese has officially been designated as China‟s national language in the Constitution (Constitution of PRC 1982). English-only has been the long-term policy in the US. The policy of multilingualism was formalised in post-apartheid South Africa which has 11 official languages (Section 6(1) of the Constitution 1996). During the apartheid era there were two official languages (Afrikaans and English) with legal status. These examples illustrate language selection, function and use through authoritative allocation in the context of language resources at national level.

Status planning of foreign languages: FL status is also determined by authoritative agencies. Fishman (see 2.2) mentions that LP involves the assignment of funds, manpower, sanction of language use and, or instruction. This is also true of FL instruction. Cooper (1990:43) reminds

us that FL related issues of public policy are of great interest to linguists who seek to obtain government grants to research these topics and who are also consulted by public and private agencies to solve language-related problems. Similar considerations operate regarding the national choice of an official language as well as the determination of what FLs should be taught in educational institutions (Cooper 1990:37).

In this regard, Loheyde (1993) investigated FL status and acquisition in the framework of LP in US higher education. A government always adjusts or re-prioritises the status of FLs according to politics, national defence and economic needs. For instance, the American Council on the

Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) held a National Policy Summit in 2005 where the National Security Education Program Chinese K-16 Pipeline Flagship was created and

implemented. This is a model for sequenced, articulated Chinese study beginning in elementary school and continuing through to undergraduate study (National Security Education Program 2005).

China‟s policy on FL instruction has also been affected by internationalism and globalisation and various FLs have been taught in China at different times. In the 1950s, Russian was of great importance (Lam 2005:8); English was bolstered during the Great Leap Forward following China‟s break from the Soviet Union (Johnson 2009:22) and all FLs suffered under Mao‟s rule. Support for learning English was later renewed as former Vice Premier of the State

Council, Li Lanqing stated, English is “not merely an educational issue per se but an issue

associated with the modernization of the country.” This attitude has continued to today (Johnson 2009:22).

FL status or priority is also a dimension of policy in higher education institutions and schools. As pointed out by Spolsky and Shohamy (2000:13), the most common form of what language to teach is the school‟s or education ministry‟s FL policy. It is this that determines how many and what languages are to be taught. The decisions on these matters are in part educational but a large part is influenced by political, cultural and other factors.

2.2.2.3 Acquisition planning versus diffusion planning

of a language or language variety. It links the language instruction and education policy. As Cooper (1990:33) states, language acquisition or education policy sets requirements, situations, or opportunities for learning a desired or required language, or a specific variety of language. Therefore, the decision of the language of instruction is partly subordinate to educational concerns. An approved FL curriculum for public schools is an example of language acquisition or education policy or planning. An acquisition policy takes the form of a statement specifying which segment of the population should spend a defined amount of time acquiring defined levels of competence in specific languages. The segment could be all or part of the school population, or a specific occupational group. The most common form of this is the school FL policy which determines how many and what languages are to be taught, what age the instruction begins, what proportion of the school population is included, and how many years and hours per year the language must be taught. Again, the decisions on these matters are in part educational; in large part they are influenced by political, cultural, and other factors. Some countries demand a minimal duration of FL tuition, for instance a year or two of learning a FL. High school or college FL learning satisfies the most common aspirations in the US, however, the need in other countries can be quite demanding. For instance, English is a compulsory subject from junior high through to university in China.

A subcategory of acquisition planning is a policy concerning the diffusion of a language beyond the national boundaries (Spolsky & Shohamy 2000:10). Diffusion policy involves the active efforts of a government or para-governmental body to encourage the acquisition of a national or official language outside the political boundaries of the state (Spolsky & Shohamy 2000:15). It therefore concerns the teaching or spread of the native language as a FL. Language diffusion policy resembles the policy of language export.

Bilingual or multilingual countries such as South Africa, are usually engaged in the polemics of status planning and particularly that of language acquisition with regard to education. They seldom engage in language diffusion (Spolsky & Shohamy 2000:27). However, linguistically homogeneous or monolingual countries usually assume that issues of status planning have already been decided. Such countries tend to stress normative corpus planning, with certain attention to acquisition planning and are sometimes politically or economically motivated to develop a diffusion policy. For instance, France is a monolingual country with a powerful political and military history; in this case diffusion might be seen as a continuation of

imperialist or colonialist language policy to areas no longer or never under the political domination of the state. French language education in former colonies was remarkable in its efficacy (Spolsky & Shohamy 2000). Today Alliance Française as a full-scale national organisation is an organ for the planning and implementation of French language diffusion.

Alliance Française is a not-for-profit organisation and forms the largest network which teaches

the French language and culture to more than 400,000 students around the world. There are more than 1,300 Alliançes established in over 112 countries, including 31 in Australia (Alliance

Française on the Sunshine Coast 2013). Ammon (1992) provides a full account of the development of the German language diffusion policy at the end of the last century and Phillipson (1992) describes British and American efforts to spread English. A question is raised by Paredes and Mendes (2002:1): “Will English be the only language spoken in 2050?” Although this is unlikely, English is currently the world‟s lingua franca. Similar efforts exist to spread Hebrew outside Israel, such as Hebrew instruction in Jewish schools and communities worldwide as part of the educational mission of the World Zionist Organization. In addition, the Israeli Foreign Ministry sends Hebrew teachers to universities in several other countries, including China, France, and Italy, and supports Hebrew diffusion activities in Jordan and Egypt (Spolsky & Shohamy 2000:15).

With the demise of colonisation and imperialism, politics, economics and globalisation have become the main influence over FL acquisition and diffusion. In this regard, Munat (2005:145-151) distinguishes between two types of diffusion: imperialism and globalisation diffusion. Imperialism diffusion refers to a language spread policy motivated by colonial powers to enforce their language on other people groups, sustained by an ideology of superiority based on religion, politics, culture, the writing system and science and technology. Colonised populations passively or forcibly studied the languages diffused by imperial countries. This type of diffusion is not however obsolete if one considers the imposition of the Russian language on occupied Eastern bloc countries after World War II. In contrast, globalisation diffusion is a language spread policy propagated by the economic giants with none or low profits. People outside of the economic powers actively and voluntarily acquire the languages diffused by these nations. The desire to acquire the FL by populations of the peripheral territories is motivated by the benefits embodied in access to economic, scientific, commercial or cultural for professional or material advancement facilitated by the acquisition of the new language. For example, the English diffusion policy of the UK has shifted from

imperialism to globalisation. This comprises an evolution from imperialist action (imperial diffusion) in the past to globalisation diffusion in contemporary times which undergirds the supposedly post-imperial character of English language spread today (Fishman, Conrad & Rubal-Lopez 1996:13-36).

Language acquisition policy and language diffusion policy can also be depicted in terms of the direction of language flow and this is illustrated in Figure 2.1. A language policy made by a country or agency to output or export their language outside national boundaries is a diffusion policy. A language policy made by foreign counties to acquire or import is an acquisition policy. It must be stressed that both diffusion and acquisition are related to the arena of language policy. In a pedagogical discussion of teaching and learning a language, diffusion and acquisition are not normally differentiated.

Figure 2.1 Language diffusion and language acquisition policy in relation to FL (Self-designed)