❖ Language, Policy and Planning:

Language Planning-
● The term ‘language planning’ was introduced by the American linguist Einar
Haugen in the late 1950s and refers to all conscious efforts that aim at changing
the linguistic behavior of a speech community. It can include anything ‘from
proposing a new word to a new language’ (Haugen 1987: 627).
● Cooper has suggested the definition: ‘Language planning refers to deliberate
efforts to influence the behavior of others with respect to the acquisition,
structure, and functional allocation of their language codes’ (Cooper 1989: 45).
● Language Planning includes activities like reviewing writing system/ or giving
scripts, reforms in spellings, choosing official language, place of minority
languages in education, place of mother tongue in education, language of media
and administrative notices/documents, coining of new terms for new usages,
building technical vocabulary, languages used or admissible in court room
(original or translation) etc.

Language Policy-
● Language policy is sometimes used as a synonym for language planning.
However, more precisely, language policy refers to the more general linguistic,
political, and social goals underlying the actual language planning process.
Although language planning is a widespread and longstanding practice, only in
the 1960s, when a large number of newly independent nations in Africa and Asia
faced the question of the selection and implementation of a national language,
did language policy and planning emerge as an area of sociolinguistic enquiry.
● Juan Cobarrubias (1983: 63–6) has identified four major ideologies that underlie
the development of language policies: linguistic assimilation, linguistic pluralism,
vernacularisation, and internationalization.

Linguistic Assimilation-
● The ideology of linguistic assimilation is based on the belief that everyone should
be able to speak and function in the dominant language of the community or
nation. Examples of this approach are numerous, and it is safe to say that
linguistic assimilation has been the most common model for language planning.
● Statistical correlations between national multilingualism, poverty, and lack of
industrialisation have occasionally been interpreted as forming a causal
relationship, and monolingualism was promoted as the cost-efficient way to
development and economic progress (for a critical summary, see Coulmas 1992).
● Linguistic, as well as cultural or ethnic variation, was believed not only to obstruct
communication but also to generate social and political conflict, which in turn
would hinder economic progress.

Linguistic Pluralism-
● Linguistic pluralism stresses the multilingual reality of societies and involves the
‘coexistence of different language groups and their right to maintain and cultivate
their languages on an equitable basis’ (Cobarrubias 1983: 65).
● A well-known example of a pluralistic language policy is that of India where
twenty two languages are officially recognised in the eighth schedule. Most of
these languages are used on a regional basis, with only English and Hindi being
used nationwide, official languages at the union level.
● Today, many language-planning theorists view cultural pluralism and
multilingualism as sociolinguistic facts which have to be seen positively.

Vernacularisation-
● Vernacularisation involves the selection and restoration of an indigenous
language or languages as main vehicles of communication and official
language(s). An example is Papua New Guinea, where two pidgin-based
indigenous languages (Tok Pisin and Hiri Motu) have official status alongside
English.

Internationalism-
● The ideology of internationalization refers to the selection of a non-indigenous
language of wider communication (often abbreviated to ‘LWC’ in language
planning studies) as an official language or language of instruction. Just as with
the ideology of linguistic assimilation, internationalization is based on the
paradigm of modernisation through westernization and goes hand in hand with
strategies of linguistic assimilation. The adoption of a non-indigenous language
of wider communication, typically the language of the former colonial power, has
characterized language planning in many postcolonial countries.
● In the early days of language planning Western sociolinguists argued that the
ethnic neutrality of a European language will help to prevent ethnic segregation
and facilitate national integration. Choosing a foreign language was believed to
be ‘uniformly unfair’ to all citizens, while choosing an indigenous language would
give advantage to one ethnic group (Scotton 1978: 730). The consensus
recommendation to the newly independent nations of Africa and Asia was to
select a major European language for official use, while indigenous languages
could serve other, more local, functions-that resulted in Diglossia and thus
 inferior status to indigenous languages. E.g. Kenya, Tanzania, Namibia have
English as the official language and language of higher education.

Dimensions of Language Planning-

There are three major Dimensions of language planning-
● Status Planning
● Corpus Planning
● Acquisition Planning
● Some scholars also suggest a fourth dimension that is Prestige planning.

Status Planning-
● Status planning, refers to the allocation of new functions to a language (such as
using the language as medium of instruction or as an official language), affects
the role a language plays within a given society. The decision to use Hebrew as a
medium of instruction in Jewish schools in Palestine from the end of the
nineteenth century or Hebrew becoming the national language of Israel after its
formation in 1948 are examples of status planning.
● Status Planning deals with initial choice of language, including attitudes towards
alternative languages, political implications of the choice etc. It is the stage at
which status is allocated to a language e.g. National language, official language,
state official language, medium of instruction in school, to be taught as a subject
in school, use in media etc.

Corpus Planning-
● corpus planning, which is concerned with the internal structure of the language,
Typical activities of corpus planning include devising a writing system for a
spoken language, initiating spelling reforms, coining new terms and publishing
primers, grammar books, etc. A central aspect of corpus planning (and language
planning per se) is language standardization, which can be understood as the
creation and establishment of a uniform linguistic norm. Uniform standardized
language, codified grammar and script are part of corpus planning along with
building vocabulary for new technical words and new domains of usages like
schools, media, administration etc.
● For this purpose special institutions are set up like Kendriya Hindi Sansthan,
Central Institute of Indian Languages in India.

Relation Between Status and Corpus Planning-

● Although language planners separate corpus and status planning conceptually, it
is necessary to understand that the two dimensions interact closely with each
other (Cobarrubias 1983). The allocation of new language functions (status
 planning) often requires changes in the linguistic system (corpus planning) such
as the development of new styles (official usages, applications, notices, circulars,
use in media, education etc.) and lexical items. A good example of the interaction
of status and corpus planning is the above-mentioned adoption of Hebrew as
medium of instruction in Palestine. The change in language status made it
necessary to expand the vocabulary of classical Hebrew in order to provide
terms for the teaching of modern school subjects such as chemistry, physics and
biology (Rabin 1989).

Acquisition Planning-
● Efforts to spread and promote the learning of a language are described as
instances of acquisition planning. Promoting education in a language from school
level to University level, or cultural institutions such as the British Council or the
Goethe Institute are set up and supported by their respective governments to
promote the learning of English and German as a second language in other
countries. Training of teachers is also part of acquisition planning.
● In any nation language acquisition planning is done according to the status given
to the language concerned. Programmes like National literacy mission, adult
literacy mission are part of acquisition planning.

Prestige Planning-
● Prestige planning is directed towards creating a favorable psychological
background which is crucial for the long-term success of language planning
activities (Haarmann 1990). Prestige Planning is vital when the promoted
language has previously been limited to low-culture functions.

Process of Language Planning-

● The process of language planning has four steps Selection, codification,
Elaboration and Implementation. These steps are similar to those that are taken
for the standardization process as standardization of language is also a part of
language planning.
● Selection is part of Status Planning i.e. what variety/language has to be selected
for what purpose. What status we have to give to a language, what function it has
to perform-official language, provincial language, medium of instruction etc.
● Codification and Elaboration are part of Corpus Planning- Codifying the grammar
(grammatication), conventions of writing (graphisation), and Standard Vocabulary
(lexicalisation) etc. (deciding on what features are acceptable in the standard,
thus minimising variation) thus producing grammars, primers, dictionaries and
thesaurus for the standard language.
● Elaboration is terminological and stylistic development of the codified language to
make possible its use in new domains that have been assigned to it.
● Implementation is often done by the governments, it can be enforced by law (In
Canada in Quebec French has to be used for all areas of public life). or there can
be encouragement- rewards for using a language or training programme (Hindi
pakhwara, rewarding employees who work more in Hindi). Implementation is part
of acquisition planning.

Approaches to Language Planning-

Instrumental Approach-
● The instrumental approach, as expressed in the work of Punya Sloka Ray (1963)
and Valter Tauli (1968), views languages as mere tools for communication,
necessarily imperfect in their natural state.
● The central aim of language planning is the methodological improvement of the
linguistic system based on a language ideal which is characterised not only by
linguistic efficiency (i.e. easy to learn and use) and communicative adequacy, but
also by uniformity and ‘beauty’ (Tauli 1968: 29–42).
● The possible symbolic value of a language or language variety as an expression
of group solidarity and identity is largely ignored, and language attitudes which
might run counter to the acceptance of proposed linguistic ‘improvements’ or
status changes are believed to be easily changeable by propaganda and
exercise of political power.
● It is at times referred to as linguistic engineering. which often focuses on changes
affecting the language corpus and perceives language planning as a mere
technical, linguistic exercise. However the acceptability does not depend on
linguistic criteria alone e.g. Esperanto, an artificial language could not become
the language of international communication (today it is used by a few thousand
people and native speakers are even less in number). Because people attach
identity, culture, history and other values to languages they speak. If a policy is
not paying heed to people’s attitudes towards language then it is unlikely to work.

Sociolinguistic Approach-
● The sociolinguistic approach to language planning stresses the social and
symbolic context of language use and the importance of language attitudes.
Since languages are embedded in the social life of their users, language
planning cannot proceed successfully by considering purely linguistic questions
alone.
● Effective planning depends on the understanding of the relevant social, cultural,
political and historical variables, knowledge of language attitudes and the
direction of social change in a given society. From this, it follows that linguists are
 not the only ones whose expertise is needed in language planning. Political
scientists, economists, sociologists, educationists and anthropologists also have
important roles to play. Such policies are more likely to succeed.

Cont.….
● The need to develop a sociolinguistic approach to language planning is
emphasised by the fact that language-planning activities often form part of a
wider social engineering and are employed to achieve non-linguistic goals, such
as socioeconomic modernisation or national integration (Rabin1971; Cooper
1989).
● That is why in India we have different languages recognized as state official
languages and Hindi and English work at the union level, so that we can have
local demands and aspirations addressed without compromising on national
integration and inter state/state-center communication.

Language Policy of India-

The Constitutional Provisions-
Four chapters in Part XVII of constitution are about languages (articles 343 to
351 of the Indian constitution deals with the issue of official languages, at the
level of state and the level of judiciary) . The Eight Schedule of the Indian
constitution has 22 official languages.
● Article 350- Language of grievances could be any official language of India.
● Article 350 A- Use of mother tongue in primary education for children belonging
to ‘minority language’ groups. (Right to mother tongue education goes back to
1931 ‘Karachi Rights’ declaration of Congress, in 1938 a committee of the
Central Advisory Board of Education supported one of the perpetual demands of
linguistic minorities by espousing the cause of mother tongue instruction in
primary school, and official support for this and for use at higher level as well).
● Article 350 B- Appointment of a special officer for linguistic minorities. The
Commissioner of linguistic minorities submits an annual report to the President of
India.
● Article 347- A substantial portion of the population of a state and not only a part
thereof, desires the use of any language spoken by them to be recognized by the
state.
● Article 345- State can adopt any or more of the languages in use in a state for all
or any of the purposes. (language in use- not less than 15% of the population
speaking the language in the state).
The Three language formula (TLF)-
Three Language Formula (TLF)- (1968)
The Three Language Formula (TLF) is the educational formula adopted by the
government of India in the 1960s for imparting education. It is as follows:
➢ In Hindi states:
● Study of Hindi
● Study of a modern Indian Language, especially from the South India
● Study of English or any other Modern Indian language
➢ In non-Hindi states:
● Study of regional language
● Study of Hindi or English
● Study of Hindi or English or any other Modern Indian language
It was first done after the Kothari Commission recommended teaching three
languages. It was constituted to evolve the general education pattern and advise
guidelines and policies for education development in India.

Implementations-
Three Language Formula (TLF)- (1968)
The Three Language Formula (TLF) is the educational formula adopted by the
government of India in the 1960s for imparting education. It was reconsidered in
1986 and before that by Gujral commissions for inclusion of Urdu in 1972.
➢ In Hindi states:
● Study of Hindi
● Study of Urdu/Sanskrit/modern Indian Language, especially from the
South India
● Study of English or any other Modern European language
➢ In non-Hindi states:
● Study of the official language of the state
● Hindi
● Urdu/Sanskrit or study of any other modern Indian Language except 1 and
2 given above
● Study of English or any other Modern European language
In many Hindi-speaking states, Hindi is taught with Sanskrit or Urdu as a
composite course.

Issues with TLF-

● In Hindi speaking states learning of a South Indian language is desirable but
not mandatory.
● In Non-Hindi states Hindi is mandatory, (In Tamilnadu Hindi is not mandatory)
● Instead of a south Indian language Sanskrit/Urdu (if there is sizable demand) are
taught in Hindi speaking states. Some also have provision for teaching of
Punjabi, Bangla and other languages if it is recognised as associate official
language of the state or has a sizable population.
● So while most of south India learns Hindi at least for few years in schools, in
the Hindi speaking states South Indian Dravidian languages are not learnt in
schools by and large (there can be few exceptions).
● Most important issue with TLF is that it has options only from the scheduled
languages no minor language has a place in TLF.

New Education Policy-

● NEP gives a lot of importance to Indian languages. This importance is not just
restricted to the maintenance of Indian languages as a mother tongue but also
includes promoting Indian languages as a medium of higher education.
● NEP plans to have a center for translation for classical languages, including
Sanskrit, Pali, Persian, etc., to facilitate the sharing of knowledge from one
language to another and promote learning of classical languages and the
knowledge they contain.
● NEP also emphasizes on mother tongue education for all and the availability of
higher and technical education in Indian languages. Now, a few IITs are starting
programmes in Hindi and other Indian Languages.
● It is a successful implementation (e.g. if more minor and tribal languages are
accommodated as a medium of instruction at the primary level) only then the
policy decision taken would be successful.