1 / 25

And what about the practical side of LPP?

And what about the practical side of LPP?. Jeroen Darquennes. Talk in Aberystwyth treated pleas for ‘ post- Fishmanian ’ sociolinguistics need for macrosociolinguistics to find an alternative for ‚ methodological nationalism ‘

takoda
Download Presentation

And what about the practical side of LPP?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Andwhataboutthepracticalsideof LPP? Jeroen Darquennes

  2. Talk in Aberystwyth • treated pleas for ‘post-Fishmanian’ sociolinguistics • need for macrosociolinguistics to find an alternative for ‚methodological nationalism‘ • need for macrosociolinguistics to rediscover and ‚operationalize‘ist own richness  methodological and theoretical challenges • macrosociolinguistic view as a necessary complement to mircosociolinguistic views confronted with the challenge of cumulative comparative generalizations (Blommaert & Rampton 2011)

  3. Today’s talk • builds on the previous one • addresses LPP • food for thought  fits the idea of a workshop

  4. Language policyandplanning

  5. Language policy and language planning • ‘grew up’ in the 1960s • policy  texts that aim at (re)affirming or changing language dynamics in society • planning  influence language dynamics by means of concrete measures • chicken-and-egg-problem  LPP • LPP  4 overlapping ‘activities’ or ‘actions’

  6. Actions thataimat ... • modifyingthecorpus • influencingthestatus • raisingtheprestige • promotingtheacquisition of a language (variety)

  7. Subdivision • used in ‘classical’ / ‘traditional’ LPP literature and research • criticized < too rigid, too neat, too rational • shines through in alternative approaches to LPP

  8. Alternative approaches • levels of LPP (macro, meso, micro) • visibility of LPP (covert vs. overt, explicit vs. implicit) • LPP authorities (top-down vs bottom-up) • ‘new’ theory (Spolsky‘s language management ≠ Neustupny‘s language management)

  9. Focus on ‘topics’ or ‘issues’ • cf. Ricento 2006  series of specific topics • slimline alternative: research concentrates on • history of LPP • LPP practices in different ‘domains’ or ‘spaces’ of society • ideas and beliefs about language • the practical side of LPP

  10. LPP practices • initialfocus on top-down activities in (semi-)officialdomains • nowadays: all possiblesocietal ‚spaces‘ on a public-private continuum • languagepracticesarelinkedtoideasandbeliefsaboutlanguageandtothelanguagemanagementstrategiesofthosewho (attemptto) influencethelanguagebehaviourofothers

  11. Beliefs and ideas about language • as an ‘object’ of study (macro-micro-level) • also colour discussion about research on LPP itself  treatment of linguistic diversity  in broad terms: two research ‘traditions’ (= poles on a continuum) • Language problems in pre-defined social groups that concern the corpus, status, ... of a named language used by the group • Interplay of different styles, registers, repertoires that colour much of everyday communication in superdiverse (and often urban) communities of practice

  12. Practicaldimensionof LPP • sometimestendstobeforgotten • importancehasbeenrepeatdelystressed • Ozolins (2013: 3115): “ideological stances and intentions will yield little, and may remain emptily symbolic, if language-planning technologies cannot be effectively put in place and help to make new language practices viable, acceptable, and rewarding for those using that language or form”

  13. Schiffman (2013: 3095): more attention ought to be paid to scrutinizing “the implementation of language policies” and focusing more on “practical and empirical issues” • Grin et al. (2002): researchers should not only reflect on whatkind of LPP activities are or should be developed in a specific context and whycertain activities may be said to be more justified than others, but rather howcertain LPP goals can be reached and if some practical way of reaching them is preferable to other ways

  14. The practicalsideof LPP

  15. Practicalsideof LPP hasbeen (partially) covered in research • Haugen‘swork on languagestandardization • Fishman‘s RLS • LPP steps (cf. schemes in Kaplan & Baldauf 1997) • cost-benefitanalysis (Grin) • curriculumdevelopment (didactiqueintégrée) • modelsof bi/multilingual education • ...

  16. What (largely) fails - I think- is • systematicanalysisoftheentiremanagementofthe LPP processfromthestrategicanalysisstagetothestrategicplanningstage • pointofdeparture: Webb (2002) andLabrie (1999) • relevancefor (top-down) LPP in theeducationalrealm in European languageminoritysettings

  17. Typical for many language policies is that they are promulgated by a government and/or other authoritative bodies or persons. • The ‘design’ of a language-in-education policy implies the involvement of a number of actors (formal elites, influentials, counterelites, ...) acting in a specific socio-cultural and socio-political context and each having their own overt and/or covert agenda and motivations influencing the policy-making process (cf. Ager 2001).

  18. Possibleresearchquestions: • Who are the actors involved in the decision-making process? What is their agenda? Who sets (has the power to set) the agenda? • Howaredecisionsmade? • Whatkindof (ideologicalandpractical) motivationsinfluencethepolicy-makingandthedecision-makingprocess? Whatistheroleof ‚identity‘? • How do these elements fit into the socio-political, economic, cultural, … context? • cf. Labrie’s grid to analyse ‘politiquelinguistique’ (policy and politics)

  19. Usually, a policy intended to influence the use and management of language in education addresses issues related to • (a) the choice and share of languages in the curriculum, • (b) the precise target population of students receiving language education, • (c) the supply of language teachers, • (d) the methodology of language teaching (including the provision of materials), and • (e) the identification of available resources to support language education (cf. Kaplan/Baldauf 1997: 115-116).

  20. The policy is put into practice by means of specific language planning measures. • The process of institutionalization of the language-in-education policy is accompanied by a more symbolic discourse (i.e. a discourse of language, politics and society).

  21. Possible research questions • Whichspecific measuresare developed to implement the policy? What kind of measures are developed at which levels? • Who develops these measures? Against which (scientific) background? What is the role of existing LPP theory and methodology? • How and by whom are the measures implemented? • What are the outcomes of the language-in-education policy? • Whatfunctions? Whatgoes wrong? Why?

  22. Comparativestudyofthepracticalmanagementof top-down LPP processes in ‚unique‘ minoritylanguagesettings

  23. Why ? • might help to close gaps in the ‘institutionalization’ of (the outcomes of) research on societal language ‘problems’ • will provide a better insight into the relevance of our trade

More Related