CHAPTER II

LANGUAGE PLANNING THEORIES AND MODELS

2.1. OVERVIEW

This chapter traces the growth and history of language planning as an

important branch of study and presents a state of the art account, focusing on emerging

trends in language planning theory and practice. Major theoretical trends and

typologies in language planning are outlined in order to show the basic moorings of

this study. Current theories are sought to be interpreted in relation to the Indian and

global contexts. The evolution and growth of language planning, both in theory and

practice is seen to have metamorphosed from a state of rigid structuration and labeling

to a phase of inclusiveness and diversity. This evolution also accounts for the changes

that have occurred in the shaping of the rubrics ‘language planning’ and ‘language

policy’.

2.2. HISTORY OF LANGUAGE PLANNING

2.2.1. The Beginning

The relationship between language and human social behavior has been of

great interest to scholars and social scientists ever since organized attempts at studying

our social environment began. Language behavior and social behavior are strongly

interrelated and the study of their relationship, at least till the 1960’s was confined to

the fields of Anthropology and Sociology. Grimshaw points out that

“....sociolinguistics as an activity specifically directed to an examination of the

18
interaction of language structure and social structure and of the inter implications of

speech behavior and social behavior has developed only since the beginning of the

sixties.” (in Fishman 1971:93). Earlier studies belonged to domains like

Ethnolinguistics and Anthropological Linguistics and dwelt on the relationships

between language and world view. Humboldt (24) traces the primacy of language in

the evolution of national cultures: “Language is deeply entangled in the spiritual

evolution of mankind, it accompanies the latter at every stage of its local advance or

retreat and the state of culture at any time is also recognizable in it.” Eminent

sociologist Emile Durkheim theorized about the influence of social structure and

social configuration including language. George H. Mead analyzed the role of

communication in the socialization process. These studies saw clearly “the enormous

significance of language for the emergence and survival of human societies” (Penelosa

188)

2.2.2. Emergence of the ‘Sociology of Language’

Well-defined attempts at studying language in relation to society emerged with

the expansion of Sociolinguistics as an important branch of Linguistics and more

particularly the emergence of the ‘sociology of language’ as a special sub-strata within

the general ambit of Sociolinguistics. Fishman (1971: 8) observes that “... the

differences between these two areas or emphases of specialization may well be far less

significant than their similarities”. Sociology of language is perceived to be less

linguacentric and starting from the mid 1960’s, it emerged as a defined, labeled and

specialized field of study. This was owing to the growing interest in the study of issues

like language planning, multilingualism, standardization and nationalism. In fact, there

19
was a perceptible difference even between Sociology and Sociolinguistics which

appears to have followed different pathways of social research. Though sociologists

saw the important role of language in society, they invariably tended to ignore it as a

special object of study. “Just because they viewed language as a necessary prerequisite

of every human group, sociologists thought that it was of no consequence in

differentiating social behavior and therefore neglected its study.” (Giglioli 7).

Sociological research used language - related variables, but language structures as part

of socio - cultural structures were not dealt with. Sociologists accepted the

instrumental value of language in social relationship, human communication, and

cultural transmission but failed to examine the deeper dialectics involved. The

converse, as already mentioned, was the case with linguists who studied languages as

self - contained systems. Firth’s critique of Sausurian linguistics is worth noting here.

His observation, “There are no meanings of words apart from human participation in a

social context”, got lost in the scale and category grammar as well as mainstream

Chomskyan linguistics (Firth 77). The recourse to social factors and variables in the

analysis of language systems was mostly impressionistic and lacked methodological

tools like the use of empirical data. This missing connection between Sociology and

Linguistics was established with the emergence of the Sociology of Language. In the

words of Fishman(1972 :1), “The Sociology of Language focuses upon the entire

gamut of topics related to the social organization of language behavior, including not

only language usage per se but also language attitudes and our behavior towards

language and towards language users”. Both Sociolinguistics and the Sociology of

Language concern themselves with the strong bonds between language and social

20
behavior but whereas the former tends to stress linguistic aspects more, the latter lays

stress on social problems emanating from language - related issues. Fishman (1971:9)

describes Sociology of Language as a broader field of interest and says : “All in all

then, the sociology of language is concerned with language varieties as targets, as

obstacles and facilitators, and with the users and uses of language varieties as aspects

of more encompassing social patterns or processes.”. This process of change in

approach itself is an indication of gradually changing perceptions about language and

society.

2.2.3. Emergence of the study of Language Planning

The growth of the broader field of ‘Sociology of Language’ and its constituent

substrata ‘Language Planning’ was almost concurrent and which came into

prominence first may be beside the point and what was important was that Language

Planning as a special field of study examined the language situation in different

nations and communities around the world. The possibilities it opened up for research

are still being pursued today, building up in the process, a considerable corpus of

literature both of theoretical and practical significance. Fishman (1971: 11) speaks

about “...the truly international nature of the sociology of language as a field of

enquiry”. Rubin (1973: V) describes Language Planning as a “new and developing

discipline (which) can offer valuable insights into the nature of language”.

The term ‘Language Planning’ was first used by Uriel Weinrich as the title of a

seminar at Columbia University in 1957. However, credit goes to Einar Haugen who

first used it in analytical literature in 1966 (Rubin: 1971: XV). For Haugen, Language

Planning is “the activity of preparing normative orthography, grammar and dictionary

21
 for the writers and speakers in non-homogeneous speech community”, (in Fishman,

1972 :673). It is worth noting here that the early attempts of standardization of English

like Dr.Johnson’s efforts to standardize English spelling fall very much within the

ambit of language planning, though such a technical term was neither known nor in

vogue at that time.

This in itself is an indication that Language Planning as a concept in its

'i h
originary theoretical formulation was rooted more in micro linguistic aspects than the

macro-global aspects which it began to pursue in the later phases. In its early stages,

Language Planning started as a linguistic concept. It is not only that many of the

writers on this topic were linguists, but they tended to see Language Planning as a

linguistic phenomenon rather than as a social process. Rooted in the structuralist

orientation of the times, they believed that “...language is an autonomous system and

therefore is not subject to deliberate modifications by variables outside the system”.

(Rubin 1971: XIV). This resulted in selective and prescriptive approaches with the

inexorable connections between language and society remaining mostly unexplored.

Those who were studying Language Planning issues were looking for “...absolute

and universally true answers to language problems in terms of linguistic variables

alone; or they have been insufficiently aware of the social implications of their

decisions”. (Ibid) The understanding that language planning issues were not purely

linguistic and the study of them needed an inter-disciplinary approach was to follow in

subsequent years and consequently, the early literature on Language Planning

remained in the domain of Linguistics. “The linguistic literature on Language

22
Planning, instead of emphasizing the change process, has rather focused on the

linguistic product”. (Ibid)

2.3. LANGUAGE PLANNING STUDIES - THE CAUSATIVE FACTORS

The emergence of Language Planning studies as a discipline has certain

historical and social causes to start with. The interest in global language systems,

national language policies and language attitudes is rooted in post - war developments

in global history. First and foremost was the end of the colonial and imperial era and

the emergence of independent nation-states. The second was the multilingual

traditions of many ex-colonial countries who were now free to begin exercises as to

how they were going to manage their own language affairs. The third was the

consequent rise of linguistic nationalism to develop a native alternative to the

monopolistic powder-status of colonial languages of wider communication like English

and French. The fourth was the fact that not only a post colonial history was shaping

up but a post colonial linguistic map was unveiling itself all over the world.

The unfolding linguistic developments were not necessarily uniform. There

were three kinds of dialectic processes taking shape. The war - tom west, including

America embarked on massive reconstmctive and developmental exercises which led

to greater immigration into other countries and the consequent increase in plurilingual

demographic compositions. Secondly, the beginning of the cold war and the

consolidation of Soviet Russia and the East Bloc led to integrative and suppressive

linguistic tendencies as witnessed in the strengthening of the Russian language and its

position of centrality in the USSR. Elsewhere, in the newly independent states of the

23
third world, linguistic nationalism was afire, stoking the feelings of an anti-

imperialistic language position aimed at dethroning ex-colonial languages and

enthroning national languages. But this process was not going to be easy for the new

nationstates. The situation in multilingual nations like India was complex. These

countries had to face the new reality of having to find a way to balance the claims and

counter claims of national languages on the one side and the dominant colonial

languages on the other. Bilingualism and Multilingualism were becoming top priority

issues world wide and linguists and social scientists had to necessarily turn their

attention to these issues. The emergence of the study of Language Planning issues thus

became both an academic and political necessity. The timely response of the

sociolinguists and social scientists was instrumental in foregrounding many of the

issues relevant and contemporary in the area of language studies.

On the theoretical side, there were other developments which were

instrumental in the upsurge witnessed in language planning studies and the sociology

of language. The strong influence of Sausurian linguistics and structuralism provided

the motivation for the search of an ‘order’ or ‘system’ in the arena of global language

interactions. The need to define, categorize and label structures within structures was

beginning to influence the study of world languages. Structuralist anthropology

heralded by Claude Levi Strauss and others had provided new vistas into the cultures,

social organizations and language behavior of so many hitherto unknown social

groups and communities, providing newer insights into the workings of organized

social interactions. To study the world language systems from such new platforms was

24
an advantage that language planning experts made use of to throw light on many of the

uncharted issues and territories.

2.4. LANGUAGE PLANNING ISSUES IN FOCUS

2.4.1. What is Language Planning?

Language Planning also known as ‘language management’ and ‘language

intervention’ is understood in the postmodernist context to mean the deliberate efforts

to influence language behavior of others with respect to the acquisition, structure, or

functional allocation. There is nothing negative about these deliberate efforts as they

are a part of the continuing process of socio-political evolution of mankind. Language

management and intervention of one kind or other have always existed whenever there

was language interaction. The affairs of language management have always been

determined according to the power relations that operate in a society. In that sense,

there is nothing new about it as a sociolinguistic phenomenon. But in today’s world,

Language Planning is proposed to be understood as language management and

interventional strategies within democratic political frameworks. Even in countries

where real democratic traditions do not exist, language imposition always poses

problems. This is because of the fact that language is one of the most sensitive and

fundamental aspects to human social organization.

In their early trend-setting work, “Can language be planned?”, Rubin (1971)

defined Language Planning as “decision making about language” and “as an activity

whereby goals are established, means are selected and out-comes predicted in a

systematic and explicit manner”. (1971: 218). Tauli (Rubin 1973: 5) defines Language

25
Planning as “the methodical activity of regulating and improving existing languages or

creating new common regional, national or international languages.” Thombum

(Rubin 1971:254) says that planning “...implies a conscious choice between

alternative ways of solving a problem - a choice that is made on the basics of a

conscious effort to predict the consequences of the proposed alternatives”. Cooper

(45) defines Language Planning as “...deliberate efforts to influence the behavior of

others with respect to acquisition, structure, or functional allocation of their language

codes”.. Blommaert (1996: 207) extends the scope further “...to cover all cases in

which authorities attempt, by whatever means, to shape a sociolinguistic profile for

their society”. Kaplan and Baldauf (1997: 3) argue that

...language planning is a body of ideas, laws and regulations (language

policy), changed rules, beliefs and practices intended to achieve a planned

change ( or to stop change from happening) in the language use in one or more

communities. To put it differently, language planning involves deliberate,

although not always overt, future oriented change in systems of language

code... in a societal context.

In recent times, Bernard Spolsky (5), preferring the phrase ‘language

management’ to ‘language planning’, identified it as one of the “...three components

of language policy”, the other two being language ideology and language practices.

The Key words, in all these definitions, point to a process in which Language

Planning becomes a conscious, deliberate and calculated language management or

interventional effort with set goals and aims at achieving desired changes in the

26
sociolinguistic profile of a region, state or community. These efforts indicate

adaptation of a language to new purposes or tasks. While prioritizing a particular

language or variety over others, social change and modernization appear to be the

overt objectives while covertly they imply power relations operating in the society. So

such prioritizing need not imply that a given other language is inadequate or

impoverished for normal communication or expressive purposes. The objectives of

Language Planning, in the normal course are meant to address social change,

consolidation of national unity, socio economic development including that of

education, administrative convenience, linguistic modernization and standardization.

A purely monolingual nation or community may well nigh become a theoretical

improbability in the current globalized world order. But in predominantly monolingual

societies, the focus of Language Planning activities are directed more towards corpus

planning. In multilingual societies, status planning gains precedence over corpus

issues.

2.4.2. Why Language Planning?

The end of colonialism, the impact of the Second World War and the

emergence of newly independent nation-states were all a correlated historical

phenomenon which created the general need for reconstruction, development and

modernization for all the countries of the world. The Western countries started with

the advantages of existing political and economic structures, whereas in the east it was

the case of initiating new models, at least for most of the new nations like India. On

the language front also there was so much that needed to be done. Advanced nations

as well as developing and new nations had to face the problems of multi-ethnicity,

27
multilingualism, language modernization and related issues. In newly independent

nations, the situation was more complex in that the question of national language and

official language became one of paramount importance and urgency. Along with

social and economic planning, planning language requirements and evolving policy

approaches became issues of national reconstruction. The language related issues and

debates in the Constituent Assembly of India (Kumaramangalam: 21-33) clearly point

to the important role that language issues played in national politics. These realities

thrown up by historical requirements led to the realization that language requirements

also needed to be planned along with other social and economic requirements.

The sense of urgency was more in newly independent nations and Fishman

(1968: 68) points out: “The recurrence, salience and significance of language

problems in developing societies press for overt feelings of solution and create a

demand for a theory of action that would offer ways of finding and evaluating

alternative solutions to given problems”. Historic experience of individual nations

would serve as the basis and prerequisite for formulation of such theories of action.

But as Rubin (1971: XIV) points out, “... historic experience alone is not enough; nor

are established academic disciplines alone equipped to formulate such a theory”.

Language Planning as a special discipline drawing upon the inter disciplinary benefits

from Sociolinguistics, Sociology, Social Psychology, Political Science, Economics

and all other related branches was necessary to deal with these new challenges.

28
2.4.3. Can languages be planned?

This arose as a classic question in the early 1970’s and was the title of the

trend - setting book on Language Planning edited by Rubin and Jemudd in 1971. This

book to a great extent was based on the findings of a meeting of scholars at the East-

West centre in Hawaii in 1969,in which problems of language policy and choice were

discussed and a theoretical framework to Language Planning was evolved. From that

point in time to the present, so many changes have taken place giving rise to a wide

variety of discussions and interpretations. But the above question is still valid and

provides the scope for continued discussions with only the focus and perceptions

changing based on newer understandings. One of the basic questions debated at this

point in time was whether language could be considered a resource and whether

Language Planning could share the paradigmatic proportions of economic planning.

The consensus that emerged was in favor of recognizing language as a resource.

Rubin (1971:196) agrees that “The logic of language planning is dictated by the

recognition of language as a societal resource. The importance of this resource is due

to the communicational and identific values attached by the community to one or more

languages”. Language Planning was seen as a process which could identify areas

which needed planned action to put language resources to the best possible use.

Language is seen as an immensely rich and vitally significant social resource

and has great sentimental and functional values everywhere. Its functional value in

various spheres of social life is all the more significant in multilingual societies, where

different languages serve as resources in different domains, according to the

29
requirements of a given situation. Countries like India have a vast repertoire of very

rich languages with great linguistic and literary traditions behind them. India, in

addition, has the strong presence of English, the international language of wider

communication. The potential richness of this wide repertoire was seen both as a

source of strength as well as problems. But in India, where bilingualism and

plurilingualism are strongly entrenched, the ordinary language user selects the

required language according to his needs and easily resorts to code-switching and

code-mixing. This establishes two facts. One is that the availability of different

languages is a rich linguistic resource. The second is that such a variety itself is a

source of problems and makes Language Planning a more complex exercise. At the

functional and communicative levels, language is an essential resource for personal,

formal, recreational, educational and other forms of linguistic interaction.

Language manifests itself as a valuable resource in all this, because the

learning of a language or languages (in multilingual contexts, it is the latter) involves

economic factors like investment, infrastructure, man power and cost-effectiveness.

The case of English education in India and the vast market potential of ELT in the

country serve as indicators to the resource value of language in India, as it is the case

everywhere.

At a wider level, language is seen as a resource for ethnic and national

identities. Ethnicity does not always imply monolingualism but in a majority of cases,

language serves as a mark of identity in terms of the individual’s participation in a

national system. At the sentimental level, language serves as a major tool and symbol

30
of attachment by bridging immediate loyalties with transcendent ones. Starting with

the primacy of the mother tongue, languages serve to link the individual with wider

groups and provide continuity and scope in social interaction. Without this resource,

individual and sub - group participation in an overall system becomes impossible.

Both primary relationships and wider relationships are made possible only by

language.

Thus, language as a resource has very powerful identi value attached to it

besides possessing significantly tangible economic and motivational values. In the

Indian context this insight remains central and powerfully operational in all language

planning and policy activities. Failure to recognize this would render our language

planning inadequate. The identi value that the mother tongue has for an Indian

citizen and the functional, instrumentation value that a language like English presents

to him is a dichotomy that has remained central to Indian language policy issues.

The value of language as a social resource and that of English as a universal

resource have come to be accepted. But economic expansion, increased opportunities

of social mobility and globalization appear to be turning this resource into a

commodity. Kachru (2006) describes this as ‘commodification’ and this is an issue

whose theoretical dimensions are sought to be analyzed later on in this thesis.

2.4.4.1. Nation Vs State Dichotomy

The emergence of newly independent nations at the end of the colonial era

gave rise to three important questions in the area of Language Planning studies. The

first related to the political organization of these states. The second pertained to their

31
linguistic character. The third focused on the dialectical differences between language

planning needs of already existing nations and the emergent new ones. These

discussions were necessary corollaries to the structuralist approach of having to

categorize, classify and label nations and their linguistic character. These

classifications nevertheless were highly useful in identifying the different situations

which prevailed in the global language ecology of that period.

The political evolution of nations, both old and new, was characterized by

colonialism and its centuries - old impact on global geopolitics, economics, culture

and language attitudes. The rise of nationalism and linguistic identity in multilingual

societies in the aftermath of colonialism is owing to political independence,

modernization requirements and increased industrialization. The linguistic aspirations

and demands of diverse nationalities within a multi-ethnic, multilingual system were

legitimate and were to be understood and respected. In this context, Fishman’s (1971)

study of nationalism and its implications for Language Planning formed the theoretical

foundation for enhanced attention to the parameters of this phenomenon. Nationalism

for Fishman is uniqueness-oriented. Ethnic uniqueness and cultural greatness of a

nationality is the rationale for the unification of hitherto pluralistic and diverse

subgroups. Nationalistic unification leads to the claim that past greatness “can be

recaptured in all its authenticity.” (Fishman 1971:4). Nationalism is also a response to

the problems and opportunities of modernization and it

...brings to bear the weight of unified numbers and dynamism of convictions

of uniqueness upon the pursuit of organized cultural self-preservation, the

attainment of political independence, the improvement of political

32
 independence, the improvement of material circumstances, or the attainment of

whatever other purpose will enhance the position of the nationality in a world

in which social change is markedly rapid and conflictive. (Ibid)

The nationalism of what Fishman characterizes as the ‘historic nations of

Europe in the early 19th century’ was ‘liberal nationalism’. These nations already had

their own historically evolved recognized states and state institutions suited for

modernization. On the basis of these parameters, Fishman (1971:6) makes a two-fold

distinction between ‘The State into Nationality Process' and ‘Nationality into State

Process’. The former encompasses European nation states, who achieved unification

much earlier under the banner of their ancient culture, tradition, heritage and shared

common primary institutions like “...their royal houses, their governmental traditions,

their educational systems, their well-established commercial and industrial patterns,

and above all, their centuries of ‘shared experiences’. (Fishman 1971: 6). The second

process of ‘Nationality into State’ includes newly-emerged nations and nationalities

that did have great traditions of their own but did not possess well demarcated

boundaries or established geographic identities of their own. The modem ‘state’

identity was not there and their traditional institutions were not adequate for the new

compulsions of modernization. These nationalities integrated or evolved into new

statehoods but retained distinct nationalist identities. Fishman used the ‘nationality

into state’ appellation to categorize the newly independent states everywhere,

particularly the multi-ethnic new nations of south and south-east Asia, where the

“...emphases are still primarily instrumental with a stress on the building of modem

and unified politico- operational institutions, out of which, it is hoped, will develop a

33
new broader level of socio cultural integration and authenticity as Indians, as

Pakistanis, as Malaysians, as Indonesians, as Filipinos and the like. (Ibid. 12) This

operational unification of various nationalities into single state entities based on

western models however did not possess one advantage. This was the long experience

of the west with autonomous political integration seen in Euro-American state

nationalities. “As a result, South and south east Asian nationalisms present a

combination of state-into-nationality ideologies plus nationality-into-state urgency and

inexperience.”(Fishman 1971: 12 -13). It is this combination which has led to the

“...correspondingly greater roles of both indigenous and imported languages of wider

communication... as languages of central government and higher education”.) Ibid 14).

Postmodernist perceptions may see Fishman’s classification in slightly

unfavorable light, and may seek to dismantle such structures, but in the early stages of

Language Planning development, Fishman’s analysis gave finely defined working

tools in understanding the nature and character of emergent nations.

2.4.4.2. A Typology of Nations

Fishman, again, provided a different typology for characterizing the linguistic

ecology of different nation-states. This typology was considered one of the important

referral points in early studies relating to language planning. He distinguished between

three types of nation-states aimed at categorizing the linguistic character of a nation.

TYPE A nations do not have a single great tradition as far as languages are concerned

and in such nations, the local indigenous languages do not have necessary

development to fulfill the functional roles and requirements. In such countries,

normally a former colonial language is adopted for all purposes. There are no conflicts

34
and this facilitates continuity and international interaction conducive for development.

Selection of the national language is governed by considerations of political

integration. Cameroon, Ghana and Gambia come under this category. TYPE B nations

like Thailand, Somalia and Ethiopia have a clearly preponderant great linguistic

traditions and subscribe “... to the selection of a single indigenous (or indigenized)

language to serve as national language...the elites of new nations making Type B

decisions tend to believe that they already possess a strong national identity but must

seek to render it more functional for the purposes of national well-being in the modem

world “(Fishman, 1971:39). In Tanzania, for example, Swalili has been able to replace

English in governance, social life and education and constant efforts are on to develop

that language further to answer the complex features of modem life.

TYPE ‘C’ nations have more complex problems to solve and India comes

under this category. In Fishman’s (1971:45) view, “If Type A decisions are

characterized by the perceived absence of a clearly overriding indigenous Great

Tradition that is considered currently adequate to serve the purpose of socio-cultural

integration at the national level, and if Type B decisions are characterized by the felt

presence of a single predominant indigenous great tradition that serves these very

purposes, then TYPE C decisions are characterized by the conflicting and competing

multiplicity of such great traditions.” In such nations, nationalism acquires the twin

identity of being supra-national and regional. As such, at the regional level Type C

decisions pose no problems as the regional indigenous language is readily acceptable.

The problem then arises with regard to the selection of the national or official

language. The multiplicity of great linguistic traditions in India creates complex

35
problems in this selection and the current demand by several regional groups for

declaring the regional language also as official language of the union emanates from

this complex richness of many languages.

The nation-state debate and the typology of nations provided by Fishman have

led to continuing explorations of the subject particularly in relation to language

planning and language policy. While on one side strident nationalism and sub

nationalism seek balkanization and dissipation, globalization trends on the other hand

are pointing to a direction of receding national boundaries and increasing integrational

function both in political and economic terms as evident in the creation of the

European Union, ASEAN and such other supra-national structures .

2.4.4.3. Lambart’s Classification

Lambart (1999) set out three basic types of Nation States: the monolingual

(monoethnic), the dyadic (or triadic) and the mosaic or multiethnic. He has argued that

language management activities are to be seen in relation to the kind of nation state as

classified above. The first type is usually homogeneous in terms of ethnicity and

language and may contain small linguistic minority groups which get marginalized in

the process of linguistic assimilation. Japan and China belong to this category. The

second type consists of two or three equal groups of numerical strength and power like

Switzerland, Belgium and Canada. The third group of mosaic nations, like India and

Nigeria has a large number of linguistic and ethnic groups. “More than half the

countries of the world, Lambart notes, have five or more substantial ethnic

communities” (Spolsky 58).

36
2.4.5. Only for the Third World?

Theoretical positions emerging from the early phases of Language Planning

studies point to another structured hierarchical notion that Language Planning was

more required for newly independent and developing nations of the third world. At

least the equation was such that ‘language conflict’ was more in third world countries

and effective Language Planning strategies were required more in those nations and

the stable linguistic positions seen in developed countries necessitated only language

planning of the corpus variety like standardization. This was an extension of the

colonial white man’s burden and ‘civilizing efforts’ paradigm applied to language

planning studies and perceptions. Rubin et.al., (1971: XIV) point to “strong

government concern with language” in developing and new nations and assert that

“such a ‘policy approach’ to language and communications development contrasts

with the ‘cultivation approach’ of many western nations...”. There has also been the

tendency to look at ‘multilingualism’ as an impediment to development and growth

and not conducive to economic prosperity. Fishman (1972:60) feels that

“...linguistically homogeneous polities are usually economically more developed.” J.

Pool opines (Fishman 1972:213) “...a country that is linguistically highly

heterogeneous is always underdeveloped or semi developed and a country that is

highly developed always has considerable language uniformity. Language uniformity

then, is a necessary but not sufficient condition of economic development and

economic development is a sufficient but not a necessary condition of language

uniformity.” Newstupny (Pattanayak, 1986:6) feels that “monolingualism is a

necessary condition for modernization.” Kelman(Rubin 1971:48), while cautioning

37
against imposition of any one language, holds that “a common language would

obviously make for a more unified and cohesive society..

But many scholars have sought to argue against such perceptions. Srivastava

(Annamalai et.al 1986:43) has argued with convincing illustrations that such

monolingual perceptions are wrong. Linguistically heterogeneous countries like

Canada, Switzerland, Belgium and former USSR have a high rate of GNP, whereas

linguistically homogeneous nations like Brazil, Mexico, Somalia, Libya and Jordan

have a low GNP. Fasold (1984:7) argues that economic disadvantage of linguistically

heterogeneous nations is a “legacy of colonialism.” Pattanayak (1986:24) argues

further that

...linguistic or cultural homogeneity of even one group is in a sense a fiction.

Both culture and language are hierarchical notions embodying in them

elements that could be called sub cultures or dialects, which viewed from

another angle, are cultures and languages... Any effort at standardization or

cultural universalism through reduction of multiplicity could give the

impression of imposition of limitations on the cultural alternatives available to

the community.

Pattanayak (Ibid) also discounts the notion that “monolingualism leads to a

cohesive society”. The generally prevalent monolingual situation has not made the

Arab States cohesive. A single language in USA or Britain has not made those

societies more cohesive than multilingual societies like Switzerland and Canada .Such

views focus on the need to avoid monistic policies. Centralized policy planning efforts

38
by their very nature are fraught with negative implications in multilingual societies.

Though it cannot be denied that monolingual societies have less problems on the

linguistic front and as such are placed in a better position to concentrate on other

developmental activities, current trends seem to indicate that pure monolingualism in

national identity is fast becoming a thing of the past. These factors indicate that

language planning is not confined only to multilingual third world countries and that

Language Planning activity of one kind or other is always taking place in all countries.

2.4.6. The Status-Corpus paradigm

One of the most recurrent themes in Language Planning studies from the

beginning is the dichotomy between the political power status of a language on the

one side and its linguistic development on the other. This dichotomy relates to the role

and function and the status and corpus paradigms. This is one of the major issues of

focus in language planning. In the theoretical and typological evolution of Language

Planning, this core issue has been widely, variedly and thoroughly discussed, giving

rise to very useful ideational pursuits. What started as a useful distinction, centering on

the twin concepts of ‘status planning’ and ‘corpus planning’, later on expanded its

reach to consider connected areas like ‘acquisition planning’ and even ‘attitude

planning’. Status planning refers to deliberate efforts to determine the role of

languages within a speech community. It involves institutional decision-making by

authority or by those in power and usually confers ‘status’ on particular languages by

declaring them as ‘official’ or ‘national languages’. This means elevating a particular

language or variety to a status of prestige at the expense of other competing languages

or dialects. In multilingual contexts like India, it is this aspect of Language Planning

39
which is very important, and most of the time, very contentious. As a result, status

planning is the most difficult and polemical part of language planning in all contexts.

In India, Language Planning and policy efforts since independence have primarily

centered on status planning in relation to the functional status of Hindi and English on

the one hand and Hindi and the rest of the national languages on the other.

‘Corpus planning’, on the other hand, is less contentious and almost conflict-

free. It deals with intervention in and management of language forms. The efforts are

aimed at modernization and standardization of existing languages for better

communicative purposes. This may involve lexical improvement, standardization,

preparation of grammars, dictionaries, orthographies etc. Corpus planning is a

necessary and valuable sociolinguistic activity seriously being done in most countries.

Acquisition planning concerns the pedagogical aspects of language in general

including the mother tongue, second language and foreign languages. It involves

efforts to increase language proficiency in learners, wider distribution of instructional

facilities and opportunities, enhancing the effectiveness of teaching methods and

materials and such other related activities. Such efforts in a multilingual context are

directly related to the demands of language spread and are determined by policy issues

pertaining to status, assimilation and pluralism. Acquisition planning takes place in

concentric circles of different levels and involves government agencies, universities,

educational institutions and autonomous private language development organizations.

Acquisition planning is generally decided by the education policies of a nation and is

rooted essentially in the supply-demand paradigm of linguistic operations.

40
 Attitude planning is relatively a new area of dialectics with no organized,

hierarchical patterns of operation. It involves efforts at influencing or strengthening

the language attitudes of people either for change or for a status quo. In the fast

changing world order, it is now usually directed at introducing changes and moving

away from positions of fixity. Attitude planning is more of a subtle propagandist

approach in which elective decisions of people rather than imposed decisions holds the

sway. Attitude planning is not a national phenomenon and is subject to global

influences of cultural invasion, consumerism, and dominant global languages. The role

of the mass media is of great functional significance in this field.

2.4.7. Language-in-Education policy

Language-in-Education policy is perhaps the most important and fundamental

aspect of Language planning and educational development in multilingual contexts. In

fact, it has been the most vital component of Indian language planning efforts since

Independence both at the explicit government policy levels and implicit, yet powerful

ideological levels of the people. The dynamics of educational language planning have

always stayed at the forefront of all levels of planning in India, including economic

planning. The dialectics always narrowed down to a choice between the best of

existing alternatives - the mother tongue medium or the English medium. Though

emotional motivation recommends the mother tongue, instrumental motivation has

always been driving people towards English. Commenting on the alternatives existing

in this field in India, Dua (1985:173) points out: “The alternatives in language

education are generally considered in terms of dichotomous distinctions related to four

41
factors: the use of national language vs colonial language of wider communication, the

use of language as a medium vs its teaching as a subject, and the use of language at a

lower level of education vs higher education.” Dua also points out to the existence of

the same kind of dilemma in most South-east Asian countries with respect to national

languages and world languages of wider currency. Thus it is to be pointed out that

language-in-education policy is one of the core issues of language planning studies. A

wider discussion of this topic in the Indian multilingual context is taken up in

Chapterlll.

2.4.8. Multilingualism - As a concept and reality

Multilingualism is one of the most interesting and widespread sociolinguistic

phenomena. In a number of societies, a large number of people speak more than one

language. In India, multilingualism is widely prevalent. When two or more languages

are employed by a nation, a society or an individual, bi/multilingualism is said to be

prevalent. When this happens at the national level, it is called national

bi/multilingualism in which two or more language are recognized and used at the

national level with an official status either for political/administrative purposes or for

establishing socio-cultural identity. In a multilingual nation, an individual citizen can

remain either bilingual or mono-lingual depending upon his linguistic enviromnent or

the linguistic needs. In the case of society, multilingualism manifests itself when two

or more languages or their varieties are in use in a diglossic relationship. The totality

of the verbal resources available to a given speech community serves as a context for

all bi/multilingualism. Kachru (Kachru 1986:159) describes multilingualism as the

42
“linguistic behavior of the members of a speech community which alternately uses

two, three or more languages depending on the situation and function.”

A very useful tool in understanding this phenomenon of emerging multilingual

states is the study of Fasold (1984:90) who identifies four historical processes

operative in this field: i) migration, ii)imperialism, iii)federation and iv)border areas.

Migration is a two-fold process. In the first instance, a large group of people expand

its territory or move into a new territory. They manage, in course of time, to become

dominant in certain domains and take control over smaller socio-cultural groups

already living in that area. Because of the success achieved by the migratory group,

certain indigenous populations come into interaction with them and, in the process,

learn the outsider’s language. This process results either in assimilation or, in some

cases, resistance. But after an initial phase of incompatibility, languages begin to

coexist and spread owing to instrumental motivation. In the second case, small groups

of ethnic minorities migrate to newer territories, get assimilated into the majority

indigenous group, learn their language and yet retain their own language for domain-

specific purposes.

Imperialism stemmed from colonialism and led to annexation of new territories

globally and the conqueror’s language always became the dominant language of

power and status. This led to language shift and marginalization of indigenous

languages. The other dimension is economic imperialism which paved way for

linguistic intervention through economic control. Ex-colonial languages like English,

43
French and Spanish became entrenched in the colonies either through total political

control or economic imperialism.

The Federative concept results in union and consolidation, either voluntary or

forced, of diverse ethnic groups and nationalities under the centralized political control

of one-state structure. Switzerland is an example of a voluntarily united federation

with three languages i.e. German, French and Italian as the national official languages.

Forced or historically evolved federations are resultant of colonialism. In Asia, Africa

and Latin America, colonial rule brought about a forced territorial integration of

different ethnic groups and nationalities.

Border area multilingualism results from geographic contiguities and inevitable

code mixing is witnessed in such areas. The end of the Second World War and the

dismantling of colonialism led to the independence of many erstwhile colonies.

National liberation accompanied by socio economic reforms led to strident sectional

demands from ethnic groups. Nationalities and nations emerged on the basis of tribal

and local ethnic identity in Africa. The same kind of the emergence of identities on the

basis either of region, religion or language was witnessed in several newly

independent nations including India. Some of these were divisive as is evident in the

case of India’s partition. But not so were all, as shown by the instance of the formation

of linguistic states in India where language based identity became strong and emotive

without challenging the legitimacy or supremacy of national sovereignty. The federal

governments had to adopt a language policy based on cultural pluralism and

multilingualism thus becoming a reaffirmed political reality.

44
2.4.8.1. Bilingualism and Diglossia

A phenomenon related to bilingualism and often confused with it is diglossia

as different from polyglossia or multilingualism. According to Ferguson (Penelosa

115) who defined it first,

Diglossia is a relatively stable language situation in which, in addition to the

primary dialects of the language (which may include a standard or regional

standards), there is a very divergent, highly codified (often grammatically

more complex) superposed variety, the vehicle of a large and respected body of

written literature, either of an earlier period or another speech community,

which is learned largely by formal education and is used for most written and

formal spoken purposes, but is not used by any sector of the community for

ordinary conversation.

The examples are French/French Creole in Haiti, classical/colloquial Arabic in

the Arab countries, and the classical/colloquial varieties of Indian languages like

Tamil. The “high” formal variety (H) and the “low” colloquial one (L) have

specialized functions such that only H is suitable for one context and in another only

L. Sermons, formal letters, political rhetoric, university lectures and news broadcasts

would use H, while L would be used in day to day conversation, intimate social

communication and in some entertainment programs. H is more standardized and

grammatically more complex. Each mode is culturally accepted as being legitimate.

Values related to L are usually informality, intimacy and spontaneity. H is generally

rooted in status superiority, ritual and formality.

45
 The concept of diglossia should however be extended beyond the H/L

dichotomy to characterize societies that utilize any kind of functionally differentiated

language varieties, including separate languages, dialects or registers. To describe

such complex multilingual situations, the term polyglossia is used. As a result of

growing modernization and increasing social complexity, a vast number of nations and

societies are characterized by polyglossia or functionally differentiated varieties of

languages. Only the smallest, most isolated and singularly homogenous nations are

free from polyglossia but such societies are rare.

Some societies face the situation of developing language problems as their

social patterns alter as a result of industrialization, widespread literacy and education,

democratization and modernization. The disadvantaged groups and classes who have

not had the advantages and benefit of bilingualism will demand more recognition and

status for the languages which they use and Fishman (1971:295) warns that

This is the pattern of development that may yet convulse many African and

Asian nations if their de-ethnicized and westernized elites continue to fail to

foster widespread and stable bilingual speech communities that incorporate the

masses and that recognize both the official language(s) of wider

communication and the local languages of hearth and home.

This assessment of Fishman has a pointed validity for the multilingual context

of India. The social-economic benefits available to those who know English as part of

their individual bilingualism should be widened to reach the masses, particularly the

educational benefits to students of rural areas. Fishman (Ibid: 297) states that

46
“bilingualism is essentially a characterization of individual linguistic versatility

whereas diglossia is a characterization of the social allocation of functions to different

languages or varieties”. Social mobility demands that an individual exposed to

bilingual situations, selects and learns that additional language which he finds useful

in terms of opportunities it provides. Children typically become bilingual at an early

age since their elders carry into the domains of intimacy a language learned outside its

confines. English in India is learnt by children this way from their educated upper and

upper middle class parents. Formal education strengthens and develops this further

and “...ultimately, the language of school and government replaces the language of

home and neighborhood, precisely because it comes to provide status in the latter

domain as well as in the former, due to the extensive social change to which home and

neighborhood have been exposed.” (Ibid)

The history of industrialization in the western world as well as those parts of

Asia and Africa clearly indicates that the means of production have been controlled by

one speech community while the productive manpower is drawn from another. In the

Indian context, this would mean that those who control the means of production have

access to and invariably use languages of wider communication like English in a

bilingual context. With rapid industrialization and urbanization, the members of the

speech community providing productive manpower, abandon their traditional socio­

cultural patterns and learn the language associated with the means of production

gaining the advantages which this newly gained language provides. As Mackey

(Penelosa, 111) points out “...more and more people are tending to be bilingual

47
through the necessity of becoming polysocial; that is belonging to one group for one

thing and to another for another”.

2.4.8.2. Language Maintenance and Language shift

Language shift and Language Maintenance describe the process where huge

populations adopt a new language or variety into their repertoires, whether or not they

also give up a language or variety that they have previously used. Fishman (1972:299)

identifies the following as the major instances of language shift: a) the

vemacularization of European governmental, technical, educational and cultural

activity, b) the Anglification/Hispanization of the populations of North/South America

respectively, c) the adoption of English and French as languages of elite for wider

communication throughout much of the world, but particularly so in Africa and Asia,

d) the Russification of Soviet-controlled populations, and most recently, e) the

growing displacement of imported languages of wider communication and the parallel

vemacularization of governmental, technical and cultural efforts in many parts of

Africa and Asia. Types A, B, D being self explanatory, examples need to be given

only for types C and E. India comes under Type C, where the ex-colonial language,

English has been adopted for wider use. In contrast Malaysia and Indonesia serve as

examples for Type E and in these two countries, the language of the colonial masters

have been pushed to secondary positions and the respective national languages have

been adopted as official languages. Whereas these national languages have almost

replaced the ex-colonial languages, in India, Hindi, the official language of the union

has not been able to replace English completely. Sources of language variance and

language preferences relate to language ‘prestige’, a concept recognized as being valid

48
in socio linguistics. Prestige is not a trait related to the antiquity and heritage of a

language nor is it a mere tag. It essentially relates to the socio-economic benefits

accruing from its use and Fishman points out that the more prestigious language

replaces or displaces the less prestigious language. But prestige is a variable term

because the prestige of languages can vary noticeably from one context to another for

the same individual or a group within the same speech community. In India, English

remains the most prestigious language in the domains of higher education,

science/technology, governance, judiciary and diplomacy. Sanskrit has its prestige in

the realm of religion and rituals. Hindi and other Indian languages have their prestige

in social interaction, family, mass media, motion pictures, literature, fine arts and

several other domains. In multilingual contexts, individuals and groups employ

languages which they find useful in different domains. As such, it would be better to

use the word ‘prestige’ in a restrictive sense as Weinrich recommends, (Fishman

1971:321) “as a technical term ... ‘prestige’ had better be restricted to a language’s

value in social advance.”

Language shift in the Indian context has led to increased bilingualism with a

combination of the mother tongue and English in most cases and two Indian languages

with or without English in the case of a significant number of people. Given that an

individual is bilingual, on what basis does he decide to use one language rather than

another in a given situation? Choices are made on the basis of the social needs and

socio cultural allocation of situations for the use of particular languages. It is in this

context that the concept of domains comes into play. Fishman and Green-field

(1972:65) define domains as “the large institutional role-contexts within which

49
habitual language use occurs in multilingual settings.” They can be considered as

social situations which involve language appropriate to certain places, role-

relationships and topics. In multilingual societies, the various domains would include

family, friendship, religion, education, work and governance. In all these domains the

‘prestige’ of the language as described above would decide its position and use.

2.5. SOME IMPORTANT THEORIES AND TYPOLOGIES

Some of the key issues which come for recurrent analysis in Language

Planning are outlined in the previous section. This section deals with some of the

leading theoretical trends and typologies in Language Planning. Though the credit for

first using the term Language Planning, goes to Uriel Weinrich, it was Einar Haugen

who started a pioneering work in Language Planning by studying the language

problem of Norway and the planning process experimented there (1966). Apart from

Haugen, there were several other scholars who made significant early contributions to

the theory of Language Planning. Neustupny (1968, 1979, 1983, 1986) Ferguson

(1968), Fishman (1968, 1971, 1972, 1974, 1983, 1988), Rubin (1971, 1983), Jemudd

and Neustupny (1986), Jemudd and Das Gupta (1971), Tauli (1974) are some of them.

2.5.1. Haugan’s Model

The developmental theory of Language Planning which originated in the

1960’s starts with Einar Haugen who in 1966 provided a four-fold model for

Language Planning: i) Selection of norm; ii)codification, iii) elaboration of function,

iv) implementation. Selection is choosing a particular language or language variety for

50
optimal status or as a common national language or as a medium of education. This is

a political decision to be taken by the government resulting in official policy.

Codification is a process of stabilization and standardization. Production of

reference materials, teaching and testing materials, production of dictionaries and

grammar books, and spelling reforms come under this process of Language Planning.

Code selection presupposes norm selection and is related to the standardization

process. Elaboration involves the expansion of language functions and the assignment

of new codes such as scientific, technological and legal. It thus involves assignment of

new roles to the chosen variety. Evolving technical terminology and such other

modernization aspects come under this heading. Implementation involves either a

centralized or decentralized coordination of government agencies, institutions,

academies and individuals for the adoption and use of the selected code. Haugen also

proposed (1966) a three fold criteria for language decisions: “efficiency, “adequacy”

and “acceptability”. Efficiency should be the criterion independent of the other two

and involves the specification and application of a set of linguistic rules to a given

situation. This would naturally imply possibilities of using linguistic theories and

principles to guide the formulation of alternatives and to adopt rules that are language-

specific and situation, context-specific. Adequacy refers to the degree of precision of

linguistic forms to be adopted for conveying information. Acceptability is in practice

evaluation and assessment which is sociological in nature.

Haugen’s other major contribution is his study of language-conflict situation

where he demonstrates that orderly planning does not exist in most cases and planning

51
follows the direction of a social movement without a unifying control. In other words.

in several cases, Language Planning goals and implementational aspects are not

clearly delineated and for all best intentions, a drift takes place with no clear

indications of future developments and possibilities. Haugen (1968:1) described this

phenomenon as follows: “Little by little a linguistic avalanche has been set in motion,

an avalanche which is still sliding and which no one knows how to stop, even though

many would be happy to do so.” This is a situation where language-related

developments are not really planned but are just allowed to happen. In quite a number

of multilingual societies, including India, this is the kind of situation one could

witness.

Haugen’s models have been generally acknowledged as being greatly relevant

to finding solutions to language problems through effective Language Planning

strategies. But Haugen had to revise his model in 1983 after Kloss (1969) came out

with his path-breaking theory which distinguished between status planning and corpus

planning. The revised model integrated Kloss’s distinction and was reformulated as

shown below (Cobarrubias, 1983:275).

Function (language
Form (policy planning)
cultivation)

Society (Status planning) (i) Selection (decision (ii) implementation

procedures) (educational spread)
(a) identification of (a) correction
problems procedure
(b) allocation of norms (b) evaluation

52
Language (corpus (iii)codification (iv) Elaboration
planning) (standardization (functional
procedures) development)
(a) graphization (a) terminological
(b) grammatication modernization
(c) Lexication (b) stylistic
development

2.5.2. Ferguson’s Tripartite Model

The publication of the book Language problems of Developing Nations in

1968 edited by J.A. Fishman, Charles Ferguson and Jyotindra Das Gupta opened up

new vistas of research in the area of Language Planning. It marked the culmination of

increased research interest in Language Planning during the whole of the 60’s,

wherein the major thrust was the systematic identification of language related

problems in developing nations. Such a pursuit revealed that Language Planning could

not be a mere linguistic exercise but was a by-product of an overall sociolinguistic

approach. Prior to this, sociological theory in general paid almost no serious attention

to language. For example, the index to Cohen’s Modern Social Theory (1968) does not

contain even a single reference to language and some of the major books on

sociological theory revealed complete lack of discussion of language. Linguists, on

their part, studied languages as self-contained systems. If they took any social factor as

referral points, they did so in an anecdotal, impressionistic way without the evidence

of supporting sociological data. Fishman and others established the interrelationship

between the structure of language and the social contexts in which it is used. Linguists

found patterned regularities to prove that language is rule-governed. The fact that such

53
rules are affected by social contexts became one of the major postulates of

Sociolinguistics. This led to the realization that language-related social problems could

be solved if the basic sociolinguistic patterns of these problems are studied more

closely. This also led to the understanding that language-change itself is a social

change and the inter relationship between patterns of social behavior and language is

very strong. Based on these developments, Ferguson evolved a tripartite model for

language development. It consisted of i) graphization, ii) standardization and iii)

modernization. Graphization related to orthographic changes and adoption of suitable

writing systems. Standardization is the process of one variety of a language becoming

widely accepted throughout the speech community as a supra-dialectical norm, “the

‘best’ form of the language rated above regional and social dialects”. (Ferguson 31).

Modernization of a language is “the process of its becoming the equal of other

developed languages as a medium of communication; it is in a sense the process of

joining the world community of increasingly inter-translatable languages recognized

as appropriate vehicles of modem forms of discourse” (Ibid). Among world languages

and even among national languages, some are highly developed and some others

relatively underdeveloped. The undeveloped or underdeveloped languages have not

been able to keep pace with growing scientific and technical advancement. But the

general agreement is that all languages are adequate enough from purely a

communicative point of view. And more so, a language can be developed to suit the

requirements of modernization and issues related to corpus planning like vocabulary,

enrichment and translation can help a great deal in this direction. Ferguson sees

54
vocabulary expansion either through borrowing or coinage of new words or translation

as the basic requirement of language modernization.

Fishman subscribes to this idea of modernization but sees no consistent

differences between the processes of development, modernization and westernization:

“...if a distinction were to be adopted in language planning, ‘development’ might refer

rather more to lexical elaboration, particularly when conducted on the basis of

indigenous roots, whereas ‘westernization’ might refer to more far-reaching changes.”

(Fishman 1984:44). In other words, Fishman sees modernization as a process of

westernization and takes the latter as a major trend in language modernization

processes.

2.5.3. Policy and Cultivation Approaches

In the 1970’s, the interdisciplinary approach to language planning gained

greater momentum and the sociology of language as a specialized field of study

developed rapidly. During this phase, new theoretical approaches emanated from

various scholars.

Neustupny provided the two-fold ‘policy approach’ and ‘cultivation approach’

in Language Planning. The policy approach relates to decisions on selection of

national language, standardization, literacy and orthographies, whereas the cultivation

approach lays emphasis on “correctness, efficiency, linguistic levels fulfilling

specialized functions and other issues like problems of style.” (Fishman 1974:39).

55
 Neustupny also understood the importance of seeing language problems as

universal phenomenon and identified the following as problem-areas related to

language policy and language use: the problem of standard languages, their

development, problems of script, literacy, problem of specialized terminologies and

functional styles, problems of second and foreign languages, learning and teaching,

multilingualism and ethnic languages, social class and sex differentiation in language,

translation and interpretation, the language of bureaucracy, language problems in the

medical profession, communication problems encountered by speakers in contact

situations, problems of politeness, address forms, problems of the establishment of

communication networks and selection of topics problems of non-verbal

communication and many others.

2.5.4. Theory of Evaluation

Rubin (1971) provided evaluation as an important theory and practice in a

four-tier formulation of Language Planning, which consists of fact-finding, planning,

implementation and feed-back. Since then evaluation has emerged as a relevant

applied social research tool in the area of Language Planning. For Rubin (1971:221),

evaluation is a “...process through which information might be provided to help

determine which kinds of decisions seem to be the best of several alternatives.” In all

language planning activities, evaluation is important as it provides the variables and

alternatives in fact-finding, planning and implementation. The evaluator can help in

the planning process by seeking to “identify and construct alternative goals, strategies

and proposed outcomes” (Ibid:222). The importance of evaluation in the different

domains of language planning is something which is not done systematically or

56
periodically in quite a number of situations. Evaluation should have precision and

clarity and according to Weiss (1966) prompt completion of evaluation and early

release of results w an important aspect of the evaluation process. This is an area

where the Indian Language Planning has exhibited greater inadequacies. According to

Dua (1985:158):

The case of Hindi planning shows the relevance of the above points as being

important for the utilization of evaluative findings. The official Language Commission

was constituted in 1955 to review the problems involved in the progressive use of

Hindi for official purposes. It submitted its report in 1956 which had to be examined

by a committee of 20 members from Lok Sabha and 10 from Rajya Sabha before its

recommendations could be accepted for implementation. The report of the committee

was submitted to the President in 1959, and the Presidential order based on the report

was issued in 1960. Thus, a period of almost five years was spent in making

evaluation results available regarding the progressive use of Hindi. By that time

political structure had changed and political pressures were building up against the

progressive use of Hindi. As a result, evaluative findings could not be fully utilized.

Evaluation has been accepted as important criterion in Language Planning.

Rubin (Fishman, 1972:477) acknowledges that “formal evaluation per se is a relatively

new and evolving field; the techniques of evaluation and of studying evaluation are

only at the beginning stage.” However considering the fact that evaluation is important

in any planning activity, a lot of research work has since been done in this field,

particularly by Alisjabana (1965), Tauli (1968) and Ray (1963). Rubin’s model of

Language Planning starts with fact-finding which is the first step to be taken by the

57
planner: “ the planner must investigate the existing setting to ascertain what the

problems are... to know what constraints, tendencies and rationales the existing social,

cultural, political and economic parameters offer.” (Fishman, 1972:478). The second

stage is where the planner will formulate plans based on his knowledge of problems

and constraints. He will also establish goals, select the strategies and be in a position

to predict the outcome. Implementation is the next stage in Rubin’s scheme, which

involves tasks such as communicating strategies and details, persuasion and

motivation of the task force, mobilization of support and cooperation from people who

are involved in the process. Finally, Rubin emphasizes ‘feedback’ on which evaluation

will be based. This is to see how the plan has worked and to match predicted and

actual outcomes. This will help in modifying strategies, re-establishing goals and to

devise alternatives. Rubin’s model with the emphasis on evaluation is comprehensive

in its approach and supplements the earlier model of Haugen. It provides good

parameters for planned action particularly for multilingual societies. In many instances

of planning, the correlation between the four stages does not have a logical

progression and enough attention is not paid to feed-back and evaluation.

2.5.5. Concept of Language Management

The theories and models of Language Planning emanating during the 60’s and

70’s witnessed further progress during the 80’s and one of the new concepts which

emerged was “language management” proposed by Jemudd and Neustupny. Their

paper “Language Planning: For whom?” presented at the international colloquium on

language planning at Ottawa in May 1986, marked a paradigm shift in the theory of

Language Planning. Neustupny extended this line of approach and evolved the

58
technical aspects of “language management” and the tools and methodology required.

This new concept sought to make a comprehensive approach to a variety of language

problems. Language management, according to Neustupny, should start with a study

of language problems as they exist in the present and to prediSIct an what they are

likely to be in the future. The second aspect would be to understand not merely how

people use language but how they interact with it. Since the attempt was to address the

whole range of language problems, it became necessary to point out the limitations

from which language planning had suffered hitherto. Neustupny (1986:1) argues that

Language Planning had not paid adequate attention to the full range of language

problems prevalent in a particular speech community:

The term ‘language planning’ has normally been applied to a certain

historically constituted variety of ‘language treatment’. This variety appeared with the

rise of sociolinguistics in the 1960’s and 1970’s and has greatly contributed to the

rigor of work in language management. Language planning was often thought of in the

same way as economic planning and carried the connotation of being an ‘objective’

and ‘value free’ system. It was concerned principally with the treatment of societal

problems affecting grammatical rather than community or interactive competence.

Also it did not incorporate the ‘discourse management (correction)’ and many other

management systems. It may therefore be justifiable to consider it as a variety of

language management and use a different term to subsume language planning as well

as those varieties which precede and follow it. The term suggested by Jemudd and

Neustupny is ‘language management’.

59
2,5.6. Language Correction Theory

Neustupny and Jemudd extended their inquiry further to include the idea of

‘language correction’ which they had already proposed in 1983. Language problems

could be removed only through a correction model whether it is language treatment,

language teaching, individual use of language in discourse or communication.

Language treatment itself is one type of language correction because it describes

organized intervention in speaking and writing. Viewed from this angle, language

planning itself can be seen as a rigorous sub-type of correction. Neustupny (1983:1)

outlines three important aspects of language correction: i) it provides a suitable frame­

work for a theory which integrates language planning with grammatical linguistics; ii)

the concept of correction allows the integration of micro linguistic and Macro

linguistic approaches; and iii) the concept of correction implies that the ultimate

location of all language problems lies in discourse. He further adds: “Language

problems are not abstract characteristics of language systems but sets of

‘inadequacies’ actually perceived in communication process”, (Ibid: 3).

The correction theory thus points out that the primary focus of all language

problems lies in the actual process of discourse or communicative interaction. In other

words, the identification of language problems is possible only through a close study

of actual language use and not through mere ideological perceptions. This kind of a

close study would reveal the inadequacies encountered by language users in a

communicative situation. The inadequacies are the real pointers to language problems.

So the real process of language management starts with the identification of these

inadequacies leading to a sound theory of language management. Jemudd and

60
Neustupny divide the correction process into two types: the simple and organized

correction types. The simple correction process concentrates on correction in discourse

of incorrect lexical selection, and organized correction deals with macro-level

corrections to the entire language system. Thus, organized correction deals with a

language system and simple correction deals with individual discourse.

Language management theory with its correction component develops positive

attitudes towards language because “...it is of great interest and considerable

importance to know not merely what language problems there are, but also which

varieties and components of varieties are liked, and how such positive attitudes are

and should be manipulated” (Neustupny, 1986:2). This is a parameter which is very

relevant for a multilingual situation like in India since it is not correct to adopt

negative attitudes like ‘which language should not be studied’ rather than directing our

language planning efforts in the direction of knowing what languages need to be

studied and how best it could be done. Language Planning according to Neustupny

had hitherto concentrated too much on negative evaluation of language and language

problems at the expense of positive norms of interaction.

One more dialectical importance of the language management theory is that it

sought to seriously consider the ‘interest’ of various groups. Language planning

cannot afford to ignore the interests and values cherished by individual linguistic

groups which are at the core of all language conflicts. Conflict is the natural result

when there is a clash of group interests. This aspect had all along been left by planners

to political scientists and the management theory sets this discrepancy right by

61
bringing this area under the purview of language planning. Since group interests are

natural in any multilingual situation, language planning can not remain ‘neutral’ or

‘value free’. The interests of individuals and groups of different ethnic communities

have to be seriously considered on the basis of the four-fold process described above.

In addition, Jemudd and Neustupny (1986:2) include the following points also for

consideration in effecting a successful language management policy:

i) Are the issues of interest the same in the case of simple discourse

management and an organized system management?

ii) How do group interests emerge at various stages of the management

process?

iii) How do group interests change in the historical process of the

development of society?

iv) How should language management experts handle differential interest?

How can theoreticians of language management handle differential

issues?

2.5.7. Status Planning and Corpus Planning

One of the most significant contributions towards the theory of language

planning was made by Heinz Kloss (1969), who introduced the distinction between the

two basic aspects of language planning: Status Planning and Corpus Planning. Status

Planning is the macro-level language management which defines the position of a

language in relation to other languages and involves the centralized strategies, aims

and goals mostly of a political nature originating from government authority. Corpus

62
planning, on the other hand, is lingua-centric, concerned with the linguistic aspects of

language management like standardization, structure, vocabulary, morphology,

spelling or orthography.

A. Four types of Status

Kloss identified four essential categories which determine language status: i)

the type of state the country in question has with regard to the language or languages,

serving its government for national or official purposes, ii) the developmental status of

a specific language spoken within the boundaries of the state in question, iii) the

juridical status of the speech community and iv) the ratio of users of a language to the

total population (Kloss 1968:70-84)

On the first point, Kloss made a distinction between ‘endoglossic’ nations and

‘exoglassic’ nations. The first type constitutes nations where an indigenous language

of the country is made the national language or the official language like French in

France. The second type consists of nations where an imported language, possibly an

ex-colonial language is made the official national language as in the case of English in

Philippines. A country may be fully exoglossic if none of the indigenous languages are

used for national governance. These type of countries are very few. Some countries

could be part exoglossic where an indigenous language is given the status of official

language along with the imported language.

Regarding the development status of a language, Kloss identified six types: i)

mature use of a group’s language, i.e. a language fully standardized and modernized

through which all modem branches including science and technology may be taught

63
both at the secondary and tertiary levels; ii) a small group standard language which

has a relatively small number of users, and has a limited scope of interaction; iii) an

archaic standard language, which is used for poetry and other profound matters like

religion and philosophy; iv) a young standard language which has recently been

standardized for specific purposes such as political indoctrination, religious training,

or for early elementary education; v) an unstandardized, alphabetized language which

has recently been put into working system but standardization of which has not yet

been accomplished and vi) a preliterate language, which has no writing system but is

spoken by a large number of people (Fishman, 1968:78).

Regarding the third point, i.e. the juridical status of a language, Kloss refers to

its recognized situational roles in the business and the daily life of the nation. He

identified five such recognized situations where the juridical status of a language can

be seen. A language may thus be: i) an official language, which is used as a language

for the business of the government, ii) a regional official language, which is used by

people of different language backgrounds who live in a particular region, iii) a

promoted language, which has neither official nor regional status but is promoted by

public authorities at the municipal, state or federal level for specific purpose, iv) a

vernacular language, which has no real legal status but is spoken as the mother tongue

of a group politically dominated by another whose existence is recognized but

officially ignored, and v) a proscribed language, speakers of which are not permitted

to use it in their communal life, in their religious congregation etc. The degree of

proscription may vary from discouragement to active suppression on the part of the

authorities. Kloss points out that the status of a language is also dependent upon the

64
ratio of users to total population. Characterizing it as an arbitrary criterion, Kloss

however admits that a language spoken only by three per cent of the population will

certainly have a status which is different from that of a language spoken by more than

60-90 percent people. As such the criterion of ratio of speakers should not be used in

isolation but should take into consideration other factors discussed earlier. The case of

English in India is worth noting here. Though spoken by small percentage of people it

remains a powerful language.

B. The Basics of Corpus Planning

The distinction between Status planning and Corpus planning made by Kloss is

a well established and accepted theoretical land mark in the area of Language

Planning. Whereas the above mentioned markers characterize status planning. Corpus

planning on the other hand is generally associated with that type of linguistic activities

involving mainly the structural aspects of language. The distinction between the two

mainly relates to form (policy planning) and function (language cultivation). However,

the non-linguistic dimensions of corpus planning were elucidated by Fishman who

drew attention to the dialectic between the modem and traditional goals underlying

corpus planning. He emphasized the significance of social and societal concerns in

evolving a successful corpus planning. Based once again on Haugen’s revised model,

the following observation has been made by Fishman: “Corpus planning, even when it

is concerned with elaboration and codification of nomenclatures, requires political,

ideological, philosophical, religious sensitivity and expertise, particularly if the

acceptance and implementation of corpus planning are not to be heavy-handed.”

(Fishman 1984:144). Seen from this view point, corpus planning involves not simply

65
the development of language per se but also the societal needs and requirements which

warrant these language products. From the linguistic point of view, corpus planning as

focused on a language system would deal with language structure and language

products or materials. From the societal view point it should concern itself with

language use and users.

2.6. LANGUAGE PLANNING - THE STATE OF THE ART

What Sue Wright wrote in a State of the Art article entitled “Language

planning and policy-making in Europe’ in 1995, appears to hold good in the general

global context even today, possibly with a few additions and expatiations. In its

evolutionary growth as a special field of investigation in Sociolinguistics, language

planning can be said to have undergone the following focal shifts of theoretical

evaluation.

1) Language planning, at the present point in time is seen as an important core

component within the general framework of Language Policy. The other two

components are ‘language ideology’ and ‘language practices’ of the people.

(Spolsky 5).

2) Language Planning has become more socio-centric than lingua-centric in that,

people in community group formations, their linguistic needs, aspirations and

actual language use within and across frontiers have taken the centre-stage than

micro-linguistic aspects and corpus-related language development issues. This

trend is rooted in the interpretations initiated by experts like Cooper (1989) and

Phillipson (1992). In the words of Cooper, “Language Planning cannot be

66
 understood apart from its social context or the history that produced the context.”

(Cooper, 183)

3) Language Planning is seen as managemental and interventionist strategy mainly

dealing with the status issue of the choice of language or language variety made

available to people. In some societies like Britain, this choice is “implicit and the

public discussion of the subject is muted,” and in some others, like France or India,

“language choice is explicit, legislated for and much discussed” (Wright, 148).

And this choice, according to Nelde, is never politically neutral (Spolsky 8).

Further, according to Spolsky (8) language planning and policy are seen to exist

“even where it has not been made explicit or established by authority.” Schiffman

(26) points out that, “even when there is no official language policy, the linguistic

status quo becomes the implicit policy.”

4) It is today well accepted that Language Planning is not just the domain of

government-authorized agencies: intellectual and power elites also have an

enormous influence. Institutions and organizations like those in education, cultural

domains, religion, and media play an important role as language managers and

these dynamics of operation flow down to the institution of family as well. “The

justification, it seems to me, is the same as that for including the decisions of

institutions such as churches and schools, namely that the same processes which

operate in macro-level planning also operate in micro-level planning” (Cooper, 37-

38). Language planning is seen to operate both at macro and micro levels. Trim

points out that “...the dynamic forces at work in the every day activity of language

67
 communities are far more powerful than conscious, ideologically motivated

policies.” (Spolsky 7). Trim’s views can be seen against the general backdrop of

Certeau’s interpretations about language spaces in the practice of everyday life.

(Certeau 91)

5) Since language is a complex socio-cultural system, Language Planning and

Language policy exist in highly complex, interacting and dynamic contexts and a

host of non-linguistic factors (political, demographic, social, religious, cultural,

psychological, bureaucratic and so on) regularly account for both language

ideologies/practices of the people as well as for language intervention and

planning efforts. Mere linguistic variables alone are not adequate in language

policy studies and real world contextual variables have to be necessarily

considered. ‘Ecology’ is the metaphor used to describe these contexts and

variables. ‘Linguistic ecology’ is the concept which is widely used today in

Language planning and policy studies. (Spolsky, 7-8).

6) Another area of interest relates to ‘ecological risk’ (where ethnicity and diversity

are threatened by dominant ideologies), language decay and language death.

(Crystal, 83).

7) Areas like multilingualism, inter-cultural discourse (Adriane Holliday et.al, 2004)

and language rights are seen as areas of increasing interest with the focus of

Language Planning shifting from developing nations to the wider global scale .The

dichotomy between resurfacing linguistic nationalism on the one side and the

68
 effects of economic and cultural globalism on the other is an important macro­

aspect of Language Planning.

8) The language-power dialectics also continues to be important. Cooper (79) and

Spolsky (40) point out that the relationship between language policy and power is

two way. As with the case of former Soviet Russia, centralization policy and

hegemonistic planning collapse when the central power is removed. In such a

situation the only force which could determine the status of various languages

consists of the language ideologies, attitudes and practices of the people. These

issues along with developments like the centrality of education in planning,

enhanced opportunities of social mobility created by globalization, expanding

global social interactions and such other related issues constitute the core of

language planning and policy at present.

2.7. REVIEW

This chapter has traced the history and growth of the subject of Language

Policy and Planning which constitutes the basis of this study. Key issues have been

highlighted and their relationship to the Indian context has been explored. Major

theories and typologies have also been outlined with a separate section on the state of

the art of Language Policy and Planning. These theoretical views are sought to be used

in the analysis of Indian language situation in Chapter III.

69