Language Policy Course
Language Policy in a Nutshell
Language policies make use of technologies influencing speakers of certain languages in order to reap economic and/or political benefits. Language policy may simply be defined as an application of power to language.
These applications may be language practices, language ideology (beliefs and attitudes), language management, interpreting language hereby widely, covering its speakers and the language environment. Usually the goals of language policy lie outside the language policy aiming at social changes, competitiveness, etc. (or the access to power, resources, security, information, entertainment, etc.) |
|
There is neither contact nor conflict between languages, but between speakers and language communities, providing infinite source of conflicts (Nelde 63: 2007). Thus, language planning problems are, as a rule, outside the language domain, not linguistic in their nature (Lo Bianco 2004).They may be carried out by states (and international organizations such as the EU, the UN), usually at the macro level, institutions and even private persons, (micro level, Tollefson 1991). Methods and approaches as well as aims and indicators vary here.
Distinction is made between the 4 dimensions of language planning:
– Status planning (Kloss 1969) is concerned with policies attributing a recognized status and functions in national, regional and even institutional life of a language. Planning activities are carried out in the domains of legislation, management and marketing (or prestige planning, Haarmann 1990).
– Corpus planning (Haugen 1983; Maurais 1993) is concerned with the quality of language concerning its structure and lexicon, establishing the literary norm, corresponding to the referential and non-referential potential of the language and its capability for translation. Codification planning, terminological planning, name planning and translation (plus interpretation, adaptation, etc.) planning are the domains involved in this language planning dimension.
– Acquisition planning (Cooper 1989) or language planning-in-education (Baldauf/Kaplan 2003) is concerned with teaching and acquiring languages and their literary norm as a necessary skill and basis for success in one's education and further career. They deal with literacy, various educational programs in multilingual environment
(second language and native language planning, linguistic accommodation of immigrant pupils, cf. EU Directive 486/77/EC, etc.) or for multilingual aims (foreign language planning), teacher training and preparation of educational materials for language purposes.
– Technological planning is concerned with providing technological support to language, be it either in oral or in written form. This is usually divided into speech technology and text processing or alternatively, to language resources (incl. corpora) and language software. Some authors have regarded this dimension under corpus planning, however, the quality seems secondary in this dimension, but rather a criteria of comprehension and further processing (e.g. running nose might cause bigger distortions in speech recognition systems than the usage of lexicon far from literary standard, as systems may be trained through frequent exposal to those).
Distinction is made between the 4 dimensions of language planning:
– Status planning (Kloss 1969) is concerned with policies attributing a recognized status and functions in national, regional and even institutional life of a language. Planning activities are carried out in the domains of legislation, management and marketing (or prestige planning, Haarmann 1990).
– Corpus planning (Haugen 1983; Maurais 1993) is concerned with the quality of language concerning its structure and lexicon, establishing the literary norm, corresponding to the referential and non-referential potential of the language and its capability for translation. Codification planning, terminological planning, name planning and translation (plus interpretation, adaptation, etc.) planning are the domains involved in this language planning dimension.
– Acquisition planning (Cooper 1989) or language planning-in-education (Baldauf/Kaplan 2003) is concerned with teaching and acquiring languages and their literary norm as a necessary skill and basis for success in one's education and further career. They deal with literacy, various educational programs in multilingual environment
(second language and native language planning, linguistic accommodation of immigrant pupils, cf. EU Directive 486/77/EC, etc.) or for multilingual aims (foreign language planning), teacher training and preparation of educational materials for language purposes.
– Technological planning is concerned with providing technological support to language, be it either in oral or in written form. This is usually divided into speech technology and text processing or alternatively, to language resources (incl. corpora) and language software. Some authors have regarded this dimension under corpus planning, however, the quality seems secondary in this dimension, but rather a criteria of comprehension and further processing (e.g. running nose might cause bigger distortions in speech recognition systems than the usage of lexicon far from literary standard, as systems may be trained through frequent exposal to those).
|
|
_ Language policy may be divided into various types (Rannut et al. 2003) based on the international legal standards (hard and soft), providing a minimum of rights for establishing an appropriate language regime, or vice versa, in the absence or violation of those:
– Minority protection models based on ethnic mobilization (securitization) (e.g. GIDS by Fishman 1991). – Language ecology models for indigenous peoples (Mühlhäusler 1995, Maffi 2001). Indigenous languages have a limited social existence, i.e. a community of a sufficient number of speakers, for whom the language is the essential tool of communication and information in all areas of human experience, having no stable foothold in urban culture. Therefore the challenge lies in the elaboration of the language in new functional domains, securing simultaneously its separate social environment. – Nation-building models applied within state framework. Attempts to solve language problems through rational planning, similar to economic models (planning language resources rationally and systematically), producing language strategies, language plans and minor programs for various domains (foreign language teaching, terminological work, language technology, etc.). These models focus on building the state as a sovereign unit (nation-building, strengthening congruence between the state, language and nation). – Language spread models (Ammon 1993), including linguistic imperialism (Phillipson 1992). – Laissez-faire policy (Phillipson 2003) treating language planning issues as secondary. While the first two models strive for societal (group) security – maintenance of the basic identity of the group under the changing conditions and threats (sustainable development of language, culture, religious, ethnic identity) – the third one, nation-building regards as its main task national security (state's capacity to manage and eliminate threats). Language component in the current security thinking belongs to the domain of soft security. Ager (1999) divides linguistic insecurity into three: – Territorial insecurity as a fear of regional (minority) languages, based on the threats of disintegration, regionalism and fragmentation. Policy in this case is based on linguistic integrity and primacy of official/national languages in high-status functional domains (administration, court, education, army, public media, etc.). Officially various integration models based on additive bilingualism are encouraged. – Social insecurity as a threat of a social outsider group (class, social layer, e.g. immigrants, poor, younger generation). Policy instruments here are equal access, participation and cooperation, promoting social inclusion. Main emphasis here is on assimilation, though partial native language support is sometimes available. – Virtual insecurity as a new domain in language conflict (modification of Ager 1999 by Rannut 2003), leading to the status decrease and loss of functional domains (IT, science, higher education, media & entertainment), due to the ever-increasing impact of technology upon language environment. In this case the physical presence of the ousting speech community is not necessary as the battleground is the virtual space. In order to eliminate and defend from various linguistic threats an expert language planning and its consequent implementation through policy is required. Language planning covers all legitimate and proficient actions in the whole language environment. |
Sustainable development is guaranteed through competitive functioning in all language planning dimensions. Formula of success is based on the principle of conformity: language use must be provided through language as an instrument of communication (language corpora and technology), regulated by law, allocated to high-status functions and sustained through intergenerational transmission.
Home Language Maintenance and Russification
Russification refers to both an official and unofficial ethnic and language policy which was implemented (and continues to be implemented) by Tsarist Russia, the Soviet Union and today‟s Russian Federation against national minorities with the aim of russifying other peoples and making them speak Russian.
It is one of the forms of linguistic imperialism where the objective of language policy is the hegemony of the language of the (former) colonial or imperial power. Such linguistic inequality is reinforced and sustained by the creation and replication of the structural and cultural inequality of society, based on the conviction that different languages have different social value. Belief in the superiority of certain languages is instilled in speakers through a variety of institutions – schools, the labour market, state bureaucracy and the mass media (Phillipson 1992; Ozolins 2003; Pennycook 1994). Russification as a specific form of language policy has been implemented via a number of strategies, which can broadly be divided into two groups. The first is related to the use of mechanisms external to the language environment (measures affecting demography, the economy and the physical environment) and the second to the use of the language environment‟s own means (measures affecting language corpus, language technology, language status and education) so as to achieve language policy goals. The most critical measures in terms of Russification in this study proved to be demographic and those related to language status and education, with which the language environment and linguistic attitudes were influenced (Mart Rannut 1994, Ülle Rannut 2005, Hogan-Brun et al 2007; Pavlenko 2006). The demographic aspect primarily manifested itself in the promotion of the immigration of the Russian-speaking population to non-Russian-language areas (such as the Baltic States and Moldova, which were occupied by the Soviet Union during World War II, a time when Russia also had an influence over other autonomous ethnic territories) so as to reduce the proportion of users of the local language and thus make everyday use of the language more difficult. |
|
The lack of any linguistic rights or any fixed language regulations meant that there was no recognition of rights for minority languages. Local languages were replaced by Russian in a variety of official and public functions. The forced switch to Russian in high-status fields – administration, the courts, the media, the army, the militia and others – heightened the status of the usurper language, while the lack of importance attached to knowledge of local languages lowered their status in turn. As a result, the majority of the population of the Soviet Union spoke Russian as either a first or a second language, while the number of other languages and of those who spoke them steadily decreased. Russian-medium bureaucracy, media and information required people to have extensive skills in Russian if they were to get by in everyday life; limiting their availability in people‟s native languages not only meant less workload, but also reduced the status of these other languages.
As a result of Russification, millions of non-Russian speakers all over the Soviet Union either partially or completely gave up their languages in favour of Russian. This was particularly the case with speakers of related languages Belarusian and Ukrainian, mixed families with speakers of different languages and those who had emigrated from their ethnic territory, who tended not only to adopt Russian but also the attitudes prevalent among Russian speakers. The direct influence of Russification on Estonians in Estonia during the Soviet occupation was modest; in the census of 1989 just 1% of Estonians nominated Russian as their native language. The reason for this was first and foremost the well-functioning education and language maintenance system, which operated despite strong pressure from Russification policy, and which maintained the high status of Estonian (Mart Rannut 1994, 2001, 2004). Nevertheless, other peoples and languages (besides
The educational aspect manifested itself in the reduction of the number of (and closure of) schools with languages of instruction other than Russian within non-Russian territories (elsewhere it was generally impossible to obtain an education in anything other than Russian, even though there were potential pupils). This hindered the formal transfer of language between generations and the learning of language skills (primarily writing) in the native language, while at the same time increasing the amount and importance of teaching Russian as an obligatory component of the curriculum in areas where other languages were spoken. As a result, the number of schools with Russian as the language of instruction outstripped the number of schools with the local language as the language of instruction in Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus in 1974 and 1975.
In Russia, however, a programme was introduced in „national schools‟ (i.e. schools with a non-Russian language as the initial medium of instruction) which saw a transition to Russian after a couple of years of basic education in the pupils‟ native language or where the native language was only taught as one subject on the curriculum. In 1960 it was possible to obtain a secondary education in the Russian Federation in 47 languages; by 1970 this figure had fallen to 30; and by 1982 it had fallen again to 17 (Pavlenko 2006). In schools with Russian as the language of instruction, learning the local language was at best voluntary and at worst not even possible. This cut off the next generation from their nation‟s literary languages, while their spoken languages quickly retreated indoors from public use and from cities to the countryside, stigmatised.
In Russia, however, a programme was introduced in „national schools‟ (i.e. schools with a non-Russian language as the initial medium of instruction) which saw a transition to Russian after a couple of years of basic education in the pupils‟ native language or where the native language was only taught as one subject on the curriculum. In 1960 it was possible to obtain a secondary education in the Russian Federation in 47 languages; by 1970 this figure had fallen to 30; and by 1982 it had fallen again to 17 (Pavlenko 2006). In schools with Russian as the language of instruction, learning the local language was at best voluntary and at worst not even possible. This cut off the next generation from their nation‟s literary languages, while their spoken languages quickly retreated indoors from public use and from cities to the countryside, stigmatised.
Estonians and Russians) were smothered by Russification, as the Soviet authorities did not allow them to set up any schools with instruction in their own languages or to officially teach the next generation their ethnic languages. (In the Republic of Estonia in the pre-war years this was not only permitted, but promoted by the state.) The result of this was that Russian became the only written language and the primary spoken language among immigrants, especially among Belarusians and Ukrainians as speakers of closely related languages and among mixed marriage families. The demographic aspect of Russification in Estonia is very clear: although the census (Statistikaamet 2000) lists representatives of 142 different ethnic groups claiming 109 different native languages between them, there are only two linguistically and ethnically homogenous groups in Estonia: Estonians, who comprise the majority speaking the titular language; and Russians. Due to space restrictions this article will not examine Estonia‟s two largest ethnic groups: indigenous Estonians, who largely managed to preserve their language and culture even during the Soviet occupation; and Russians, who benefited most both linguistically and culturally from the conditions of the period (their numbers increasing twelve-fold between 1944 and 1989, and the number of Russian speakers increasing almost 20 times; see Katus and Sakkeus 1992). The third largest group, Ukrainians, can be more or less divided into two groups based on language: those who have retained Ukrainian as their native language (41%) and those who have adopted Russian as their first language (57%). The situation is even worse among Belarusians, where only 29% consider Belarusian as their native language and 70% speak Russian as their first language. The dominance of Russian can also be seen among other ethnic groups. It can therefore be said that ethnic identity does not necessarily depend on home language, as this is influenced by a number of factors, including the prestige of the languages spoken around people and the ideologies related to and attitudes towards these languages.
|
Language Policy in the Middle East and Circassian Language Maintenance in Jordan
Circassians are one of the minorities living in a diaspora situation in many countries all over the Middle East. The reason for this was the Great Migration that occurred at the end of the Caucasian War in 1864 (Hewitt 2002; Mufti 1972). Circassians resettled in various parts of the Ottoman Empire, eventually becoming residents of a variety of states, for instance, in Iraq (19,000), Israel (3000), Syria (25,000), Jordan (44,280) and Turkey (277,900) (Gordon 2005).
The Circassian diaspora in Jordan corresponds to the minority definition of Francesco Capotorti which is also a basis of Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1996) as well as of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (1992). According to this definition a minority is defined as a group which is numerically inferior to the rest of a state’s population and occupies a non-dominant |
position whose members – being nationals of the state – pose ethnic, religious or linguistic characteristics differing from those of the rest of the population and show, if only implicitly, a sense of solidarity which is directed towards preserving their culture, traditions, religions and language. Circassians correspond in every way to the minority definition of Capotorti, because they are a numerical non-dominating minority who are not colonisers in Jordan and have no power; however, they are, and have been since the building of balad (city/state), Jordanian citizens (Shami 1996:321). The Circassian language as a language spoken in the area for more than a 100 years, and already widespread at the time of the founding of the state of Jordan, qualifies as a minority language according to this international standard, and therefore should be recognised by the state, which itself should provide the rights and opportunities for minority language planning, essential for the Circassian language maintenance.
|
The Middle East is perceived as being dominantly Sunni Muslim and Arab, while minorities are usually defined in various legal documents either on a religious basis (non-Muslims, Christians, Druze), or on an ethnic basis (non-Arabs, Circassians, Armenians, Kurds). Therefore, Circassians should not be regarded as a minority on a religious basis (they are overwhelmingly Muslim), but rather on an ethnic and linguistic basis. Professor Majdi Eddin Khamash from the University of Jordan argues that, “here in Jordania we don’t say minorities. We say all citizens are Jordanians.” The term “minority” seems to have negative connotations in the context of the Arab world, as explained by Shami (1996:321), who argues that Circassians’ reaction to the word “minority” is always to reject the label, providing the following explanation: “We have participated fully in the building of this balad and so we are not a minority.” In several personal conversations and interviews with Circassians in Amman (Jan-Feb 2007) the privileges of Circassians were emphasised as they stressed an elite status and not a minority one.
This is well illustrated by Mohydeen I Quandour (personal interview in Amman, January 2007) who pointed out that, “in Jordan Circassians enjoyed much higher privileges and standing in the country than anywhere else in the world. We had a real hand in making this country and the government; the Hashemite Dynasty relied on Circassians as earnest Jordanian citizens.” According to Juan Corrubias (1983b:70) there is a correlation between political inequalities and linguistic inequalities. Differences in power also account for linguistic differences and privileges. The status of the languages reflects power relations in society, social status and the self-esteem of every speech community. The modern constitutions of Islamic Arab states regularly proclaim Islam as the national religion and standard Arabic as the official language (Miller 2003, 6 - 7). So does the Constitution of Jordan, adopted in 1952, that declares that ‘the Arabic language shall be its official language’. There is no mention of other languages, and neither is there a stipulation that language rights should be guaranteed. Jordan is a party to many human rights agreements, including the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR 1996) declaring in Article 27 that: ‘In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right in a community with other members of their group to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language’.
Article 6 of the Constitution of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (1952) declares that ‘all Jordanians shall be equal before the law. There shall be no discrimination between them as regards their rights and duties, on the grounds of race, language or religion’. There is no legal document in Jordan which would classify minorities on a linguistic basis, and the mentioning of minority languages has been avoided. Also, Mohammad Al Arabi from the University of Jordan (personal interview in Amman, January 2007) defines minorities through religious and ethnic differences, recognising the existence of such minorities in Jordan, however, he refused to admit the existence of linguistic minorities. He was seconded by Majdi Eddin Khamash, who argues that ‘there is no such thing as a linguistic minority in Jordan’ (personal interview in Amman, University of Jordan, January 2007). Miller (2003) argues that minority languages in Arab States are almost totally excluded from public life and at best accepted in their folkloric forms, i.e. in songs and dances. Once a minority has been assimilated into the mainstream, it often maintains only certain symbolic markers, such as dress, ornaments, dance, song, etc. This case is illustrated in the interview of Amjad Jaimoukha (personal interview in Amman, February 2007), who voices the opinion that although like any other culture or civilisation, Circassians have their proverbs, sayings, history, customs and traditions, all of this has been sacrificed and only dance as a major cultural manifestation is still maintained. However, language maintenance refers to the actual use of a minority language in different domains, as well as attitudes towards it. Official attitudes towards minority languages vary considerably. ‘Letting a language die’ and ‘unsupported coexistence’ are two more frequent attitudes (Cobarrubias 1983, 71_3), which do not involve an aggressive attempt at eliminating the language, but rather allow for official neglect or indifferent tolerance, the last of which also characterises the official minority policy in Jordan. In this case language maintenance is entirely in the hands of the community, and the functions the language is used in are associated with community life.
According to the UNESCO (2003, 13) language vitality and endangerment factor 7 (language attitudes and policies), one may conclude that there is a passive assimilation of minority languages in Jordan where the dominant group is indifferent as to whether or not minority languages are spoken, as long as the dominant group’s language is the language of interaction. Though this is not an explicit language policy, the dominant group’s language which is Arabic is the de facto official language and in most domains Circassian language use does not enjoy high prestige. Although there are no official restrictions for using minority languages, there is an implicit language policy which reflects language attitudes and preference of the majority language which is Arabic, minority languages are totally excluded from public life. To discover the degree to which the Circassian language in Jordan is endangered and whether it is at risk of falling out of use, we have investigated the language use in different domains among Circassian community in Jordan based on UNESCO’s (2003) language vitality and endangerment factors. |
|