LANGUAGE FRAMEWORK AND MODEL

If we re-examine the definitions of LP (see 2.2), we find that Haugen developed an early fourfold LP model: language selection, codification, implementation and evaluation. Cooper (1990:157) added the aspect of acquisition to this model. A recent synthesis by Hornberger (2006:29) brings various definitions together into an “integrative framework” for LP. This specifies three categories of activity that count as LP (status, corpus and acquisition) and two approaches (policy planning and cultivation planning). Status planning is “about uses of language,” acquisition planning about “users of language” and corpus planning “about language.” This is depicted in Table 2.1 below.

Table 2.1: Language policy and planning goals: An integrative framework (Hornberger 2006:29)

Note: LP types are in plain typeface, approaches in italics, goals in bold.

APPROACHES TYPES

POLICY PLANNING APPROACH (ON FORM)

CULTIVATION PLANNING APPROACH (ON FUNCTION) Status planning (uses of language) Officialization Nationalization Standardization of status Proscription Revival Maintenance Spread Inter-lingual communication- International Intra-national Acquisition planning (users of language) Group Education/School literary Religious Mass media Work Reacquisition Maintenance Shift Foreign language/second language/literacy Language‟s formal role in society

Extra-linguistic aims

Language‟s function role in society

Extra-linguistic aims

Corpus planning ( language)

Standardization of corpus Standardization of auxiliary code Graphization

Modernization (new function) Lexical

Stylistic

Renovation (new forms, old functions) Purification Reform Stylistic simplification Terminology unification Codification Language‟s form Linguistic aims Elaboration Language‟s functions Semi-linguistic aims

Hornberger‟s framework covers different perspectives from which linguists or educational researchers can easily and clearly find their categories.

a) International language spread: This is the intersection of status planning type (focusing on use or selection of language) and cultivation planning approach. The international role and spread of MFL as a diffusion (China) and acquisition policy (South Africa) is relevant here.

b) Education or school literacy: This is the intersection of acquisition planning type (focusing on user or language spread) and policy planning approach. This is relevant because the thesis discussed MFL in higher education programmes.

c) Foreign language: This is the intersection of acquisition planning type (focusing on user or language spread) and cultivation planning approach. This is applicable to the aspects of instruction and acquisition of Mandarin, such as curriculum provision, pedagogy, study abroad and study at home.

Cooper (1990:159) introduced a framework in terms of acquisition planning with two variables: the overt goal (which may be acquisition, reacquisition or maintenance) and the chief methods employed to attain the goal (which may be an opportunity to learn, incentive to learn, or both). Cooper thus developed the following 9 categories quoted by Furumoto 1996:33) and shown in Table 2.2 below.

Table 2.2: Cooper’s preliminary framework for acquisition planning (Cooper 1990; reproduced by Furumoto 1996:33)

Overt goals

Chief methods

Acquisition Reacquisition Maintenance

Opportunity to learn Incentive to learn Both opportunity and incentive to learn

Table 2.2 indicates the overt goals of acquisition, reacquisition and maintenance. Acquisition refers to L2 or FL acquisition and concerns language spread or the increasing of language users. Reacquisition refers to reacquisition by groups for whom the language was once a vernacular (e.g. renativization of Hebrew and attempts to renativize Irish, Ireland‟s native language).

Language maintenance refers to efforts to prevent the further erosion of a native language (e.g. Irish in the Gaeltacht) (Cooper 1990:159). Opportunity is the access to learning a L2 or FL either through direct class instruction or the immersion in a suitable environment (e.g. the production of literature, newspapers, radio and television programs in simplified versions of the target language). Incentive refers to the mechanisms which encourage people to learn the target language. For example, Irish is a requirement for certain civil service jobs in Eire. China adopted the policy of making English a compulsory subject from secondary school and a requirement for a matriculation certificate and admission to university. As a result, students take their English courses seriously. In the case of English in China, there is simultaneous incentive and opportunity for secondary school learners in the form of intensive English classes. But clearly China can only provide an instructional opportunity for learners of English and not an immersion environment: there is hardly a street sign in English and almost no available English literature, newspapers or radio and television programs. Immersion opportunity is therefore limited. Examples of sufficient opportunity for language learning quoted by Cooper (1990:160) are French medium immersion or bilingual educational programmes for Anglophone children in Quebec, Canada.

The overt goal relating to this thesis is acquisition, and the chief methods which are the concerns of the thesis are opportunity to learn, incentive to learn and both opportunity and incentive to learn.

Ruiz (1984:15-34) proposes yet another framework according to orientations in language planning or policy:

a) Language-as-problem: Linguistic minorities must overcome the language obstacle in order to mainstream into the majority culture. This is the most prevalent attitude in American society today.

b) Language-as-right: Linguistic minorities have human and civil rights to maintain their mother-tongue.

c) Language-as-resource: This acknowledges that the nation as a whole would benefit from the conservation and development of its linguistic resources.

According to the language-as-resource approach, a language, and especially a FL, is seen as a means to enrich society in various ways. Language-as-resource has been a popular theoretical framework used to analyse FL policy in the US (Loheyde 1993; Furumoto 1996). This approach underlies Title VI legislation to support foreign language study for national defence and economic competiveness. Ethnic languages in the US have, however, been suppressed in order to compel immigrants to assimilate into the English-only society (Beykont 2002:1-22). Ironically, ethnic languages have only been regarded as a resource when useful for political reasons or national defence (Furumoto 1996). FLs such as French, Spanish and recently Mandarin Chinese and Japanese, are not usually encountered in daily life in the US; they hold prestige for those who learn or speak them and are frequently viewed favourably as an additive advantage. The language-as-resource approach can also be used to explain positive attitudes towards learning English in China. Here the official state position on learning English is that it is “not merely an educational issue per se but an issue associated with the modernization of the country” (Johnson 2009:22).