MEG 4 Language Planning

• Block-7 Language in Use-II

PLANNING IN GENERAL

Planning refers to the organised and deliberate effort to achieve specific goals by making use of available resources in a controlled and purposeful way. It involves a conscious process of setting objectives, evaluating alternatives, and selecting the most suitable means to reach those objectives. Planning is future-oriented and processual, meaning that it is systematic, continuous, and measured against expectations.

LANGUAGE PLANNING: AN INTRODUCTION

Language is dynamic and constantly changing, both in structure and use. Speakers do not use a single variety of language for all purposes; instead, they switch between different linguistic forms depending on the context. This variation provides the foundation for Language Planning (LP), which involves making deliberate choices among linguistic alternatives.

Language Planning refers to the conscious efforts to influence how a language is used, standardised, or changed. These efforts can aim to solve specific language-related problems within a community, promote language development, or enhance communication.

The term “language planning” was first used by Uriel Weinreich in 1957 at a seminar, but it was Einar Haugen in 1959 who introduced it formally into academic literature. Haugen described it as the activity involved in preparing an orthography, grammar, and dictionary for guiding speakers and writers in a multilingual society.

"Language planning is the methodical activity of regulating and improving existing languages or creating new common regional, national or international languages" (Tauli 1974:56).

CONCLUSION

Language planning is a complex and multifaceted field that intersects with politics, education, and social change. It involves deliberate, structured decisions aimed at shaping how a language functions in a society. As language is a powerful social tool, LP plays a crucial role in national integration, identity formation, and educational reform. From the standardisation of language forms to their functional allocation in society, LP is a purposeful activity that reflects both cultural values and pragmatic concerns.

Language Learning Theories.

1. Instrumental Theory of Language Planning

• Proposed by Tauli (1974).
• Language is seen as a tool or instrument.
• Belief: Language can be evaluated, improved, or even newly created.
• A good language should have:
  • Beauty
  • Clarity
  • Flexibility
  • Economy
• Language planning should fix or improve "bad" or "inadequate" languages.
• Weakness: It ignores the emotional and symbolic value of language and people’s attitudes toward it.
• It has an idealist view — assuming that one language can be “better” than another.

2. Sociolinguistic Theory of Language Planning

• Belief: Language is social and not just a tool.
• Based on two main ideas:
  1. All languages are equal in value to their native speakers.
  2. Language planning must address both technical and social aspects of language.
• This theory rejects the idea that some languages are naturally better.
• Language is not just for communication—it’s also tied to identity, culture, and social life.
• Scholars like Jernudd, Das Gupta, Fishman, Rubin, Singh, and Dua support this view.
• Planning in this view is about respecting all languages and using them to improve social harmony and communication, not to replace or "fix" them.

History of Language Planning

Language planning, as a formal field of study, began in the twentieth century, but its activities have a much older history. Long before the term was coined, various efforts were made across the world to regulate, reform, preserve, or promote languages.

Over the decades, the focus expanded:

• In the 1960s, the goal was problem-solving in multilingual settings.
• The 1970s emphasised planned language change.
• The 1980s brought in the evaluation of language planning efforts.
• The 1990s saw critical reflection, looking at the influence of social, political, and economic forces on language policy.

1 The 1960s: Planning for problem-solving

• LP in the 60s tried to solve societal language problems, especially those arising from language and ethnicity relationships.
• Language was seen as a marker of ethnic identity, social class, and mobility in multilingual contexts.
• LP shifted from preparing a language to serve a function to solving language problems in multilingual or multiethnic communities.
• Focus areas included: language types, attitudes, diglossia, language maintenance and shift.
• The decade saw the rise of language policy formulation and implementation.
• Haugen’s 1966 model introduced key LP concepts: selection, codification, elaboration, and implementation.

2.4.2 The 1970s: Planning for change

• LP emphasised planned change, building on Lambert’s idea that language attitudes are changeable.
• The goal was to deliberately change language by changing people’s attitudes.
• Eastman (1983): problem-solving is still present, but all solutions now involve language change through language choice and policy formation.
• Key themes:
  • Language for Wider Communication (LWC) (e.g., South Asian English in India, Swahili in Kenya)
  • Language standardisation (unifying linguistic diversity)
  • Multilingualism (identifying existing varieties and their distribution)

2.4.3 The 1980s: Focus on Evaluation

• The theoretical base of LP was developed, thanks to case studies from the 1970s.
• Emphasis on evaluation of results—an area previously lacking in LP.
• Addressed Haugen’s call to evaluate linguistic change and how it is brought about.
• LP began exploring social and cultural contexts: motivations, reasons for success/failure.
• Cooper (1989) asked: “Is a theory of language planning possible?”
  • Proposed a sociological perspective focused on social rather than linguistic issues.
• Fishman (1987): LP should promote ethno-cultural pluralism and democracy.
• New approach: Language Management — aims to solve discourse-level inadequacies.

2.4.4 The 1990s: Critical Reflection

• LP saw multidisciplinary expansion, influenced by postmodernism and Critical Theory.
• Scholars examined how economic and historical forces shape LP and policies.
• Focus areas:
  • Language maintenance vs. death
  • Language acquisition
  • Language and social structure (Tollefson 1991)
• Key issues:
  • Language rights
  • Structural inequalities in policies (Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson 1994)
  • Language revitalisation (Fishman 1991)
• Critical views emerged:
  • Khubchandani (1983, 1995) criticised LP for serving elite control and social exclusion.
• Jernudd (1996): LP is now influenced by migration, nationalism, ethnic relations, and globalisation.

2.4.4 The 1990s: Critical Reflection in Language Planning

In the 1990s, language planning (LP) became more critical and reflective, drawing from postmodernism and Critical Theory. Scholars from many fields began to explore how economic, political, and historical forces influence language policies.

Main Areas of Focus:

• Why do some languages survive while others die
• Why certain languages are learned and others ignored
• How language is connected to power, class, and social structure (Tollefson, 1991)

Key Concerns:

• Language rights
• How language policies create or continue social inequality (Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson, 1994)
• Efforts to protect and revive endangered languages (Fishman, 1991)

Conclusion

The history of language planning shows how it has evolved from solving practical problems to addressing complex social, cultural, and political issues. Starting in the 1960s with a focus on problem-solving, it moved toward encouraging language change in the 1970s, evaluation and theoretical development in the 1980s, and critical reflection in the 1990s. Today, language planning is seen as more than just managing languages—it is deeply connected to identity, rights, power, and equality. This journey highlights the growing awareness that language is not just a tool, but also a symbol of culture, community, and social justice.