2384
Application
240. Language Planning: Standardization
Sprachplanung: Standardisierung
1. Language planning: history and definitions
2. Why planning language?
3. Models of LP processes
4. The goals of LP
5. Who plans?
6. Language standardization
7. Development of standard languages
8. Standard language reforms
9. Literature (selected)
1. Language planning: history and
definitions
While language planning (hereafter LP ) may
be called an old phenomena in human his-
tory, it is, however, a relatively new disci-
pline. The term LP was launched by Haugen
in 1958 (Haugen 1959) in connection with
his work on Norwegian language policy and
language reforms (Haugen 1987, 626). LP
was there defined as “the activity of prepar-
ing a normative orthography, grammar, and
dictionary for the guidance of writers and
speakers in a non-homogeneous speech
community”. The term was later elaborated
and rephrased by Haugen, i. e. 1972, now
also including “all forms of what is com-
monly known as language cultivation (Ger.
Sprachpflege, Dan. sprogrøgt, Swed. språk-
vård), and all proposals for language reform
and standardization” (Haugen 1972, 133),
and even “the evaluation of linguistic
change” (Haugen 1972, 162). His definitions
have been modified by many others who
have adopted the term. Rubin and Jernudd
define LP as “deliberate language change:
that is, changes in the system of language
code or speaking or both that are planned
by organizations that are established for
such purposes or given a mandate to fulfill
such purposes” (Rubin/Jernudd 1971, xvi).
Tauli also adds the point of “improving
existing languages” (Tauli 1968, 27) to the
definition of LP.
1.1. Researchers of language planning
often differentiate between two distinct
types of LP activities, those that are con-
cerned with modifying the language itself
(‘language corpus planning’), and those that
are concerned with modifying the environ-
ment in which a language is being used (‘lan-
guage status planning’). According to this
division, LP might be viewed either from a
XI.
societal or from a language focus. “The so-
cietal focus is called ‘status planning’ and
consists of those decisions a society must
make about language selection and the im-
plementation to choose and disseminate the
language or languages selected. The lan-
guage focus is called ‘corpus planning’ and
consists of linguistic decisions which need to
be made to codify and elaborate a language
or languages. These two foci form the basis
for an overview of all the activities which
make up the language planning process.”
(Kaplan/Baldauf 1997, 29.) Although this
binary classification of LP activities is
widely encountered in LP research, the dis-
tinction is not, however, a clear-cut one, “be-
cause not all kinds of language planning
activity can be neatly classified in this way”
(Crystal 1987, 364). Kaplan/Baldauf con-
sider the separation between status planning
and corpus planning an ‘oversimplification’.
As made clear by many researchers of LP, it
is “virtually impossible, in practice, to separ-
ate the two activities. The fact is, that any
change in the character of language is likely
to result in the change in the use environ-
ment, and any change in the use environ-
ment is likely to induce a change in the char-
acter of the language” (Kaplan/Baldauf
1997, 28).
1.2. In accordance with Haugen’s first
rather ‘narrow’ definition of LP, the disci-
pline initially was concerned about govern-
ment planning for national situations (cf.
Fishman/Ferguson/Das Gupta (1968): Lan-
guage Problems of Developing Nations). The
tendency later has been in the direction of a
more and more ‘broad’ or ‘including’ range
of issues and approaches to language plan-
ning. Cooper (1989, 45) defines LP as refer-
ring to “deliberate efforts to influence the
behavior of others with respect to the ac-
quisition, structure, or functional allocation
of their language codes”, whereas Kaplan/
Baldauf (1997, 27) in their book on LP “use
‘language planning’ as the generic term for
the discipline and use it to encompass every-
thing from government macro-level national
planning to group or individual micro-level
planning.” In fact, LP is carried out by
a variety of government departments and
agencies, language committees, councils and
academies, language interested groups and
240. Language Planning: Standardization
even individuals. The LP activities may
range from judicial, political and official to
unofficial and also rather private efforts. As
a new discipline within linguistics, it might
still be in a “continuing need for detailed
case studies of the widely differing situ-
ations in individual countries; few general
theoretical principles have been proposed”
(Crystal 1987, 364). In addition, although
there is much literature concerning the vari-
ous elements of language planning, there is a
need for studies about language planning as
a process (Mac Donnacha, 2000). A number
of different linguistic and social factors (i. e.
historic, political, religious, economic, atti-
tudinal) have to be taken into account when
LP issues are studied. As a consequence, it is
probably not surprising that researchers
within LP still find it difficult to explain why
some LP proposals have succeeded, whereas
others have failed. However, in spite of
the view held among several linguists, that
language change is a ‘natural’ process, LP
studies have shown that it is quite possible –
at least in some cases and under certain cir-
cumstances – to influence and alter the lan-
guage development. This area continues to
attract a great deal of interest, for both ap-
plied and theoretical reasons, and the disci-
pline “also presents a fresh perspective for
our understanding of linguistic change”
(Crystal 1987, 364).
2. Why planning language?
The new name language planning was chosen
“with the idea that it would be one aspect of
a much-used modern term, social planning”
(Haugen 1987, 627). To Haugen, the fact
that language is a social institution and one
of the chief instruments of social life, was
important. In Scandinavia social planning
and language planning had gone hand in
hand, so he would not consider it unnatural
also to do language planning. Others might
have an opposite view about modifying and
altering language behaviour in a community.
At least there are some differences in the na-
ture of social planning and language plan-
ning, for instance when one considers the
time needed to fulfill the change: It may take
several generations to alter the linguistic be-
haviour. The reasons for LP are complex –
as well as the necessity – “ranging from the
trivial notion that one doesn’t like the way a
group talks, to the sophisticated idea that a
community can be assisted in preserving its
2385
culture by preserving its language […] The
language modifications are also complex,
ranging from a desire to ‘modernise’ a lan-
guage so that it can deal with the vast tech-
nological changes that are occurring, to a
desire to ‘standardize’ a language” (Kaplan/
Baldauf 1997 f). Language planning is often
considered to be a means of a language con-
flict solving and a help for the linguistic
community as a whole, for example in estab-
lishing a new language standard. As a matter
of fact, however, LP solutions may some-
times create new problems when solving
other. As mentioned by Haugen in connec-
tion with the regulations of new and old lan-
guages for teaching purposes in the nine-
teenth century, many groups “awoke to
discover that they were second-class citizens
in their own country, excluded from public
life by their unfamiliarity with the dominant
standard. In some cases this led to the estab-
lishment or re-establishment of competing
standards” (Haugen 1966, 12).
2.1. Many different social and ethnic
groups have been interested in getting their
own linguistic identity reflected in writing,
and have therefore often fought for recogni-
tion. Governments must react to these de-
mands, and then often try to solve the prob-
lems by ‘language planning’ or ‘linguistic
engineering’. If several languages are spoken
within a country, it might be considered
natural to choose one of them for official,
educational, religious, and other purposes.
It might as well be necassary to construct a
new variety. The language will need to be de-
veloped in order to serve as a means of
national and international communication.
If the language previously only existed as a
spoken variety, a suitable writing system
must be made, included rules for spelling
and punctuation. An important aim is the
codification of grammar and vocabulary,
and a unification when there has been great
variation between different varieties. This
kind of LP has often been undertaken in sev-
eral former colonial countries in Africa, but
also elsewhere in the world.
2.2. Also languages with long writing
traditions and a rich literature are under-
taken LP, but mostly in other ways and with
different goals than those mentioned under
2.1. Examples are language reforms, i. e. re-
forms concerning the spelling, changes in
the orthograpy (for example in ‘national-
ized’ spelling of loan words), or the writing
system (the often quoted example is from
2386
Turkey, where Kemal Atatürk in the 1920s
changed the writing system to a romanised
one). Language reform is a process that lan-
guages undergo, not at least traditional lan-
guages, perhaps especially because of the
rapidly expanding technology. Other rea-
sons for LP could be lexical modernization,
language purification (external or internal),
stylistic simplification, or terminological
unification (see presentation in Kaplan/
Baldauf 1997, 59–83, partly based on Nahir
1984). It might, however, be questioned
whether all the LP is necessary and useful, in
other words: what are the goals of LP ? The
answer can only be given with reference to
the specific LP cases. Jahr suggests LP may
have as a general goal the reduction of lan-
guage conflict, but admits that LP activity
itself also could be “the cause of serious
problems as well as major conflicts” (Jahr
1993, 1). As mentioned by Vikør (1994, 42),
LP might well function as a kind of ruling
technique in the hands of a depressor or a
social upper class, but also as a means of lib-
eration and emansipation of a depressed
language group. Before one undertakes a LP
project, there should be a basic ideology or
agreement on values. A ‘value neutral’ LP is
hardly possible.
3. Models of LP processes
LP might be regarded as a process in which
various stages and activities are included, al-
though the degree of activities differ tremen-
dously, as they may include anything from
proposing a new word to a new language.
One often differentiates two distinct kinds
of activities in LP : corpus planning and
status planning (see 1.1.). Although the dis-
tinction between corpus planning and status
planning is not always obvious, it is widely
encountered in LP research. After Haugen’s
first basic model of the LP activities – devel-
oped in connection with his work on Norwe-
gian language planning (Haugen 1966) – a
number of attempts have been made by LP
theoreticians to provide a descriptive model
of the LP processes (i. e. Fishman 1974,
80–81; Karam 1974; Eastman 1983). How-
ever, Haugen incorporated much of the
thinking in his ‘revised’ LP model after con-
sideration of suggestions made by many fol-
lowers and colleagues (Haugen 1983, also
presented in Haugen 1987), and to some ex-
tent this model still seems to function as an
overall model of the LP process.
XI. Application
Form Function
(Policy planning) (Cultivation)
Society (1) Selection (3) Implemen-
(Status (Decision tation
planning) procedures) (Educational
spread)
(a) Identification
of problem (a) Correction
(b) Allocation ofprocedures
norms (b) Feedback and
evaluation
Language (2) Codification (4) Elaboration
(Corpus (Standardization (Functional
planning) procedures) development)
(a) Graphization (a) Termino-
(b) Grammati- logical moder-
cation nization
(c) Lexication (b) Stylistic
development
Fig. 240.1: Haugen’s (1987, 627) revised language
planning model
3.1. According to Haugen’s model one di-
stinguishes attention to the form of the
language as policy planning, with its empha-
sis on basic language and policy decisions
and their implementation, from attention to
the function of the language, which might be
called language cultivation, with its empha-
sis on language teaching, development, and
use. In addition, each of these can be viewed
from either a society or a language focus.
The societal focus is called status planning
and consists of desitions concerning langua-
ge selection and implementation, etc. The
language focus is called corpus planning,
and concerns the language itself.
4. The goals of LP
All languages change, and it is often dis-
cussed whether LP is really necessary. Many
linguists have held the view that language
change is a natural phenomenon and a result
of linguistic and social forces that it is
undesirably to tamper with. The language
should be left alone, and not an object of
language planners, politicians, educators,
etc. However, many studies and examples
from different languages have shown that it
is possible to alter the language and lan-
guage use, although it is still unclear how far
and under which conditions languages can
be influenced by LP programs and political
decisions. As language might be considered
a social institution it is natural to regard lan-
guage planning as a part of a social plan-
ning. “In modern times social and language
240. Language Planning: Standardization
planning have gone hand in hand. In Nor-
way the connection between language plan-
ning and an expanding social democracy
has been especially conspicuous. One cannot
understand the development of modern
Norwegian without taking into account the
social, economic, and political changes in
Norwegian life over the past 150 years”
(Haugen 1987, 627).
4.1. The language planning processes can
be described by the four cells in Haugen’s
model (i. e. selection, codification, elabor-
ation, and implementation, see Fig. 240.1),
but the model does not define the goals of
LP, and how and to what extent the LP
should be carried out, i. e. what goals is this
process intended to accomplish? The lan-
guage planning activities are in fact mostly
done to meet specific types of goals, and
they “range from the political and judicial,
at one extreme, to the unofficial and illegal,
at the other” (Crystal 1987, 364). Kaplan/
Baldauf (1997, 59–83) list a number of spe-
cific goals or functions (mostly based on
Nahir’s (1984) study of an analysis of lan-
guage planning agency activitiy, and other
authors), which can be related to the lan-
guage planning practice: language purifi-
cation; language reform; language spread;
language revival; language standardization;
lexical modernization; stylistic simplifi-
cation; language maintenance; terminologi-
cal unification; interlingual communication;
auxiliary code standardization.
Vikør (1994, 38–42) groups the need for
LP according to type of linguistic commu-
nity. Communities with a well established
standard language with several centuries
tradition – like many west European coun-
tries – mostly have a stable language situ-
ation, and the LP often concerns spelling
and vocabulary/terminology. This also might
apply to communities with standard lan-
guage developed during the last two cen-
turies in connection with a national and/or
political movement or revolt. Multilingual
nations may need a common communi-
cation means, together with a policy for in-
tegration of linguistic minority groups. A
fourth type consists of new national states,
formerly ethnic/linguistic minorities in bigger
formation of government (i. e. The Soviet
Union, Yugoslavia). These new states might
want to develop a linguistic independency
towards the previous dominating central
power and dominating language. Vikør (1984,
40) admits, however, that this grouping can-
2387
not cover all the language communities. The
problems concerning language planning
change from community to community and
are so different and special, that most coun-
tries in one or other way are ‘untypical’ and
‘a special case’. On the other side, certain
linguistic challenges are general, although
the solutions might be different and depend
on the specific linguistic and social condi-
tions in the particular country.
5. Who plans?
One often gets the impression that language
planning is and has been done from within
an objective, scientific, ideologically neutral
and technologically perspective where the
persons involved in the planning matter little,
as long as they have the expertise required.
However, to point out explicitly who the
planners are might be an important factor in
the language policy and planning situation
(Baldauf 1982). Sometimes the LP is the
product of individuals working largely out-
side the framework of formal organizations
but LP might as well be the product of
formal institutions – publishing houses,
churches, schools, professional associations,
and the like. In other cases LP is the product
of governments – and LP is even often the
product of both individuals, formal institu-
tions and governments at once. Referring to
the language situation in Malaysia, Kaplan/
Baldauf conclude that “language planning
participants have included politicians, power-
ful community leaders, bureaucrats, consul-
tants and language experts and education
planners and administrators” (Kaplan/Bal-
dauf 1997, 198). When one focuses on the
normative aspect of language planning, it is
obvious that a large number of persons and
interest groups – from single persons to ter-
minology groups and language councils –
are participating in different kinds of LP
activities. Language policy development is
complex, and it is often the case that a large
number of people are involved. (See for
instance Skyum-Nielsen (1979, 136 f), who
has listed several types of individuals, groups,
and community institutions who to a minor
or major extent are interested in influencing
the LP in Denmark.) When one considers
the fact that members of a community may
have different varieties of language in their
linguistic repertoire, and some varieties are
associated with social variables such as so-
cioeconomic status, education, sex, etc., one
2388
also understands that there is a possibility
(or risk) for elites in various countries to use
language as a social mobilization strategy to
establish or maintain their power an privi-
leges. As a consequence, language planning
might in a number of cases be considered a
less democratic activity than LP idealists
want it to be. In addition, many of the tradi-
tional participants in language policy and
planning have according to Kaplan (1989)
come from what he refers to as ‘top–down’
language planning situations – people with
power and authority, often with little con-
sultation with the language learners and
users.
The language planning institutions with
the highest grade of authority are probably
the ones which are mainly linguistic, i. e. who
are supposed to be specialists on language
and linguistics. Examples are national lan-
guage councils and terminology boards, lexi-
cographic institutions, etc., which also func-
tion nationwide and are not limited to certain
groups of language users or text types.
5.1. We do not know if the earliest lan-
guage planners really intended to ‘plan’ the
language, but it is not believed that they had
any planning organizations behind them.
They might, however, have kept an eye on
the needs and traditions of their govern-
ments or of their church, but in the Renais-
sance “we begin to get evidence of actual
theories, including the notorious Elio Ne-
brija, author of the first Spanish grammar
(1492), which he presented to Queen Isabel-
la as a ‘companion of empire’, designed to
enhance the maiesty of Spain” (Haugen
1987, 628). One could point at Dante and
his De vulgari eloquentia (1304–5) when one
looks for a start of a LP theory: “Dante
pointed out the need for rules in establishing
the new languages and suggested two ap-
proaches for overcoming the local variations
that were expecially troublesome in ltaly:
either to choose a prestigious dialect (in his
case it became that of Tuscany and its capi-
tal Florence) or to create a language that
would be a composite or a compromise be-
tween several dialects and suitable for all (or
none)” (Haugen, ibid.).
5.2. Often advice concerning the use of
‘good’ language, given by the early gram-
marians from classical to early modern
times, yielded to official establishment of
norms. A transitional link was formed by
the semiofficial institutions known as ‘acad-
emies’ (Haugen 1966, 9). The first example
XI. Application
of what might be called central LP institu-
tions, is the Italian Accademia della Crusca
(‘The Academy of Chaff ’), which was estab-
lished in Florence in 1582. This was a so-
ciety of learned persons, and the idea was to
clean out the ‘chaff ’ of the Italian language.
The Academy published a normative, pu-
ristic dictionary in 1612 (the Vocabulario
degli Accademici delle Crusca) for the Tus-
can based language, and the dictionary be-
came normative for later Italian standard
language. In this period of history several of
the modern European national languages
were codified, and the Italian example was
followed by the French L’Académie Fran-
çaise, which was given official status by
Cardinal Richelieu in 1635. The Academy
should “work with all possible diligence and
care to give our language exact rules and
make it suitable for the treatment of art and
science.” The French example was widely
copied. Spain established its academy
in 1713 (Real Academía Española), and
Sweden in 1786 (Svenska Akademien).
It is probably fair to say that academies of
this type did not play any important part as
language planning institutions in the narrow
sence – as they to a certain extent have tended
to be literally institutions, and also came late
in the process of standardization. And in
some countries such academies have never
been established. Examples are Great Britain
(and later America). This does not mean that
the English speaking countries never had any
normgiving institutions, but they have en-
trusted the care of English to a kind of ‘privat
enterprise’, however without admitting a
‘wider’ norm than the academies. In the
Anglo-Saxon cases the big dictionaries (Sa-
muel Johnson 1755; Noah Webster 1828)
played the role as normgiving institutions.
5.3. In the nineteenth century there was a
need for new orthographies for new lan-
guages, and at the same time many of the old
were felt to be unsactisfactory. The school
system established for the whole population
also led governments to regulate the lan-
guage of teaching, and the practical work
and the language norm implementation
could be entrusted to governmental departe-
ments of education. In modern time the
regulation of language often is done by
learned commissions, like in the Scandina-
vian countries, starting with Svenska språk-
nämnden (‘The Swedish Language Council’)
in 1944, and later similar language councils
were set up in all the Nordic countries. Ac-
240. Language Planning: Standardization
cording to Vikør, we usually do not find lan-
guage councils in the countries which have
the most established standard languagae
traditions, but have to look to smaller lan-
guage societies and societies with new stan-
dard languages in order to find them, for in-
stance in Israel, Tanzania, India, Malaysia,
Indonesia and other not-European coun-
tries (Vikør 1994, 121). Although these in-
stitutions of language regulations and lan-
guage norms hardly have achieved the same
literary and cultural prestige as the tradi-
tional academies, they might have become
respected as professional institutions. In ad-
dition to – and often as a supplement to –
the language councils, one should consider
the new institutions of terminology. In many
cases they also represent another type of
competence than the strict linguistic one,
and may work on special areas and regulate
the terminology for specific purposes, for
example technical terms.
6. Language standardization
In Haugen’s LP model (see Fig. 240.1),
codification is one of the four main elements
(besides selection, implementation, and elab-
oration) in the 2 × 2 matrix, and is the ‘form’
part of ‘corpus planning’. Haugen also labels
the codification category ‘standardization
procedures’, and suggests that codification
consists of three areas: graphization, gram-
matication, and lexication. Codification of a
language thus focuses on what is needed to
formalize and develop a linguistic set of lan-
guage norms. Ferguson (1968) also argues
that standardization indicates the develop-
ment of one variety of language becoming
widely accepted throughout the speech com-
munity and as such overrides regional and
social dialects.
6.1. In many Western countries, the exist-
ence of a standard language is often taken
for granted, in linguistic studies as well as
by common people. This does perhaps not
mean that sociolinguists accept the criteria
of which these standards have been postu-
lated, but “even in order to ascertain poss-
ible trends in the change of normative atti-
tudes in speakers, one defines variation with
respect to its idealized standard” (Mioni
1988, 297). Of the different levels of the lan-
guage system, there often seems to be most
attention about changes and variation in the
phonology. Among the ‘letters to the editor’
or telephones to broadcasting companies,
2389
complaints about pronunciation details use
to be among the most frequent ones. Ac-
cording to Mioni (1988, 297–298), however,
the degree of tolerance might be larger in
those levels whose evolution is more rapid
and the variation wider. Although there can
be attached important social signification
even to minor pronunciation details, the
variants in present day European languages
only concern minor details compared with
the degree of variation that is common in
African linguistic communities, or in other
parts of the world with a rather fluid lan-
guage dynamics. Mioni also claims that in
the Third World, where one often has many
languages at one’s disposal, this advantage
is highly prized and there is less discrimi-
nation against non-standard speakers of
prestigious language.
Standardization could be regarded as a
continuing process, but in its typical form it
is mostly thought of in connection with new
nations and communities which are trying
to identify and create a national language.
Standardization has often been a goal of
language policy and language planning, as
for the Norwegian linguist Ivar Aasen. He
early expressed his ideas and the conviction
that a natural way to found a truly Norwe-
gian language to replace the 400-year old
imposed Danish, was to build on the living
Norwegian dialects. Aasen himself became
both the collector and the ‘one-man-com-
mission’ that created a new Norwegian lan-
guage (today called ‘Nynorsk’) in a gram-
mar of 1864 and a dictionary of 1873, which
are two fundamental tools of a standard lan-
guage. However, the production of gramm-
ars and dictionaries for living languages is a
time-consuming work which take many
years to complete.
6.2. The standardization processes might
be different both with regard to nature and
degree when one compares the major lan-
guages in Europe with for example many Af-
rican languages, where the standardization
usually has a more recent tradition, and the
interaction between the language users and
authorities often is more relevant. As Mioni
(1988, 303) pointed out – with reference to
Kloss (1978) – a classification of standards
might foresee six classes of Ausbau: (1) fully
developed standard languages; (2) standard-
ised minor languages; (3) archaic standards;
(4) ‘young’ standard languages; (5) unstan-
dardized written languages; (6) unwritten
(or very seldom written) languages. The
2390
three last steps of this scale are the most ac-
tual when one considers the African lan-
guages, because in this continent “standard-
ization processes are very recent (with the
major excetion of Classical Arabic, an ar-
chaic standard): they date from the second
half of the XIX c., in the best cases” (Mioni,
ibid.). In addition, only a few languages can
be regarded as fully developed standards;
many of them are ‘young’ standards, and
some of them have also undergone ortho-
graphic reforms in recent years. To become a
standard language, feedback of a couple of
generations of users is needed, “that is al-
ways necessary in order to test the viability
of the proposed policy and to make the op-
portune modifications. Every standardization
has some aspects of artificiality, because the
process is mainly aimed at a written usage,
and a written language, because of the very
nature of written texts, can never be the same
as its spoken variety” (Mioni 1988, 304).
As a written standard also might be said to
be a partly artificial choice among compet-
ing varieties, there will often be discussions
whether one has made the most suitable
decision. Therefore, the standardization pro-
cesses in communities with ‘young’ lan-
guages are quite different from what is
mostly the case countries with ‘old’ stan-
dard languages.
6.3. To maintain the standard in a chang-
ing world with new linguistic needs, i. e. de-
fining new vocabulary and terminology, lan-
guage usage in new language domains, etc.,
dictionary publishers provide new editions
of their dictionaries with short intervals,
and also new editions of grammar are pub-
lished with updated language norms, changes
in usage and spelling rules, and other regu-
lations. In addition, there are often pub-
lished numerous books by language councils
or experts, telling the population what is the
‘correct language’.
6.4. There is a large variation of standard
processes and of principles of standard-
ization. These priciples are very often con-
nected with linguistic and political/social
norms, which might be discussed or be ta-
ken for granted by language planners and
members of the linguistic community. The
underlying planning principles which are the
dominating ones, depend on the time when
language planning is or was conducted, and
on historical or political circumstances. As
Haugen (1987, 634) has pointed out, the dis-
cussions of language policy and problems
XI. Application
“go back into antiquity and can be traced
under innumerable titles containing such
terms as language standardization, language
and nationalism, literary languages, national
languages, language reform, language culti-
vation, the linguistic norm etc.”
The ‘corpus planning’ concerns those
aspects of language planning which are pri-
marily linguistic. Haugen labels the ‘codifi-
cation’ category ‘standardization procedur-
es’. Vikør (1993b; 1994) has presented a set
of underlying corpus planning principles
which might illustrate the ways a corpus can
be planned. Vikør (1994, 143) admits that it
is not quite easy to formulate and system-
atize the various principles for language
planning and to give a uniform survey of
them, as they are partly contradictory. His
survey of corpus planning principles and at-
titudes which might be of importance in lan-
guage discussion, could be looked upon as
single elements upon which the language
ideologies are build. His set of principles
shows that language planners who are in-
volved in the corpus planning process also
are involved in alternatives and choices
which have a social aspect and which must
be resolved for such planning to be success-
ful, and are not only applying technical lin-
guistic knowledge. The principles can be
grouped into four major categories: (1) In-
ternal linguistic principles (including for
example unambiguity, phonemicity, mor-
pho-phonemicity, simplicity, shortness, ety-
mologi, variation, stability and invariance);
(2) Principles concerning the relation to other
languages/language varieties (including rap-
prochement or adaption, reaction/purism);
(3) Principles concerning the relationship
between language and the language users
(including principles of majority, optional
forms/liberality, prestige, counter-prestige,
usage, estheticism, rationalism); (4) Prin-
ciples related to societal ideologies (including
nationalism, traditionalism, democracy/egali-
tarianism, liberalism). The second and fourth
category might be labelled ‘sociolinguistic’,
the first category ‘psycholinguistic’ (cf.
Skyum-Nielsen1979), and the third category
both ‘sociolinguistic’ and ‘psycholinguistic’
(Vikør 1994, 146).
This set of corpus planning principles
demonstrates clearly that there is no single
common strategy available for language
planners. Various language planning prin-
ciples together with changing language atti-
tudes and ideologies have come into use in
240. Language Planning: Standardization
different languages at different times through
the LP history. Kaplan/Baldauf (1997, 38 f)
point at the great interest corpus planning
has generated in the literature, and refer to
studies of language standardization in a
large number of different languages.
7. Development of standard
languages
There seems to be a widespread opinion
among common people – and even among
some linguists – that the only kind of lan-
guage variety which count as a ‘proper lan-
guage’ is a standard language. ‘Standard lan-
guages’ compared to ‘dialects’ are interes-
ting partly because they have a rather special
relation to society. “Daß eine Varietät einer
Sprache als (nationale) Standardsprache an-
erkannt wird, ist eine vorwiegend gesells-
chaftliche Tatsache (bei der selbstverständ-
lich die sprachliche Materie auch ihre Rolle
spielt)” (Daneš 1988, 1510). One often
thinks of ‘normal’ language development as
taking place in a rather haphazard way,
partly below the treshold of consciousness
of the speakers. Standard languages, how-
ever, might be the result of a direct and de-
liberate intervention by society. “This inter-
vention, called ‘standardisation’, produces a
standard language where before there were
just ‘dialects’” (Hudson 1996, 32). It is fair
to say that the notion ‘standard language’ is
somewhat imprecise, and the amount of lan-
guage varieties which are or have been la-
belled ‘standard’, is rather heterogeneous
and therefore not easy to define. This
relatively wide variation in the use of ‘stan-
dard language’ is clearly demonstrated by
the terms occurring in different national
traditions of science, i. e. ‘written language’,
‘cultural language’, ‘literary language’,
‘common language’, ‘Hochsprache’, ‘Ein-
heitssprache’, etc. However, the notion stan-
dard language – which is based on the Eng-
lish model and has later been adopted by
linguists in many countries – might have the
advantage of being considered relatively
‘neutral’ (Daneš 1988, 1506).
7.1. When defining and deciding what
is a standard language, some language re-
searchers have pointed at both the different
characteristics and the functions that consti-
tutes this type of language. It seems clear,
however, that one has to consider the func-
tional aspects in this respect as the most im-
portant ones, although all the character-
2391
istics and functions do not need to be
present and play a role in all standard lan-
guages at the same time, as developing a
standard language often has been a long
process, and different features have been es-
tablished as ‘standard’ at different times.
There also are differences of the ‘standard’
category even among the well-established
languages. According to Haugen (1997, 247)
“French is probably the most highly stan-
dardized of European languages, more so
than, for example, English and German.”
About the definitatory problem of the phe-
nomenon standard language one could claim
that even if the limits (the pheriphery) of the
definition are unclear and uncertain, the es-
sence (the centre) is relatively firm. Daneš
(1988, 1507) claims that the two main char-
acteristics of standard language are the two
functional criteria: “(1) ein Instrument für
die gesamtgesellschaftliche (überregionale)
Kommunikation, (2) ein Kommunikations-
mittel für höhere kulturelle und Zivilisa-
tionsbedürfnisse.” The criterion (1) separ-
ates the standard language from the local,
regional and social varieties, whereas the
criterion (2) draws the borderline between
the standard language and the ‘Umgangs-
sprache’, the overrregional Koiné.
As to the typology of standard languages,
Ferguson (1962) has proposed to classify
them along two dimensions: (1) their degree
of standardization, and (2) their utilization
in writing. Daneš (1988, 1507) describes
a three-dimensional typology: (1) “der
Funktionsumfang”; (2) “Charakter der
Einheitlichkeit”; (3) “Verhältnis der Stan-
dardsprachen zu den umgangssprachlichen
Formen”. These and other suggestions for
classifying standard languages could, how-
ever, be regarded as preliminary steps to-
wards a real typology of standard languages.
7.2. If ‘standardization’ in its most typi-
cal meaning is the “process of levelling out
local and class differences in language” (Pei
1966), the four aspects of language develop-
ment that should be regarded “crucial fea-
tures in taking the step from ‘dialect’ to ‘lan-
guage’, from vernacular to standard, are as
follows: (1) selection of norm, (2) codifi-
cation of form, (3) elaboration of function,
and (4) acceptance by the community”
(Haugen 1997, 348). This analysis of the fac-
tors typically involved in standardisation
has been quite widely accepted by socioling-
uists (Hudson 1996). There are, however, so
many different examples of language stan-
2392
dardization processes and degrees of plan-
ning dealt with, and so many varieties and
such a complexity of linguistic and social-
historic conditions under which the stan-
dard languages have been developed, that
one has to be content with examples of the
main types. (1) A society without a standard
language develops to a stage where such a
communication means is needed. (2) The so-
ciety is already fully developed, but the stan-
dard language is for various reasons re-
garded as unsatisfactory, disliked, etc.
7.3. The standard languages are mostly
based on ethnic, regional or functional var-
ieties (Daneš 1988, 1508 f). The first stan-
dard language was in many cases an
(over)regional variety, or a systematic selec-
tion of several varieties. The emergence of
standard varieties of language in Western
Europe started to take place from the fif-
teenth century. A major contributing factor
was the rise of a print culture with increased
access to mass media on the written and
later the spoken word. As the common label
‘written language’ indicates, is the writing
itself an important part of the development
of the standard language, cf. for example
Ferguson’s (1968) three main components of
language development: graphization, stan-
dardization, modernization. The writing also
plays an important role for the standard-
ization, stability and conservation of the
language, and in addition writing is often
considered a national cultural benefit by the
languagae community. This fact might also
explain the general resistance against writ-
ing and spelling reforms, as recently demon-
strated in Germany in connection with the
spelling reform 1998, and for the Norwegian
reforms in the 20th century (see Haugen
1966; Vikør 1993).
Haugen (1997, 346) claims that it is “a
significant and probably crucial require-
ment for a standard language” that it is
written, and through the history there are
not many examples of only spoken standard
languages. It is, however, often questioned
whether there also exists a spoken standard
language in addition to the written stan-
dard – and what exactly is to be recognized
as the standard (Daneš 1988, 1507), as it is
well known that spoken language is more
variable than written. It should be added
that also the existence of a written standard
might be higly disputed, or be accepted with
a high degree of variation in word forms and
spelling (as for example in modern Norwe-
XI. Application
gian). According to Hudson (1996, 33 f),
these problems belong to the “debate and
disagreement about the desirability of cer-
tain aspects of standardization. For instance,
it is not essential either that standardization
should involve matters of pronunciation as
well as of writing (Macaulay 1973), or that
standard language should be presented as
the only ‘correct’ variety (a point argued by
many linguists and sociolinguists).
8. Standard language reforms
The standard language norm of a living lan-
guage is due to change for various reasons.
The need for reforms might be caused by
changes in society and culture, which often
are reflected in changes in language use. The
degree of standard language reforms may
vary from slight change in spelling of words
to a complete reform on all levels of the lan-
guage system. Other examples are simplifi-
cation of orthography, lexicon and grammar
with the aim of facilitating language use.
Language reform is a process that all lan-
guagees undergoe, but “rapidly expanding
technology has placed the greatest strain on
traditional languages for reform” (Kaplan/
Baldauf 1997, 64 f). According to Daneš
(1988, 1513), the different levels of complex-
ity in standardization activities could be
looked at as dependant of historic condi-
tions, i. e. standard languages with a hetero-
geneous basis, with several variants of the
norm, with a great difference between the
written and the spoken language, the need
for new national standard languages, and
‘modernization’ of an old standard lan-
guage, which is now being used in a quite
different way. Changes in the standard lan-
guage norm might as well occur as a result
of the interaction between the standard lan-
guage and the ‘Umgangssprache’ with its
different regional pronunciation variants.
Such reforms are often labelled moderniz-
ation, urbanization, simplification, purifi-
cation, nationalization, liberalization, etc.,
and there are numerous examples of stan-
dard language reforms from many lan-
guages.
8.1. However, standard language reforms
have shown to be more or less successful.
This fact might partly have to do with which
part of the language or language use the re-
form applies to. It is normally more difficult
to change the spoken standard than the
written one. In Norway, some of the spelling
240. Language Planning: Standardization
reforms in the first part of the 20th century
were successful. However, another reform of
a special kind has turned out to be only a
partial success: In 1951 the Norwegian par-
liament decided to adopt a new numeral sys-
tem, i. e. femtien ‘fifty-one’ (as in English
and Swedish) instead of enogfemti ‘one-and-
fifty’ (as in German). When this numeral re-
form was dicussed, nearly all institutions
and experts claimed that this new numeral
system after a short period of time would be
used by most Norwegians, as people soon
would be convinced of its simplicity and
rationality. Today, half a century later, this
new system is mostly used where clarity is
required, for example in the media, while the
traditional system is still very much alive.
Instead of a new counting system, there are
now two, and so far the clarity is not achiev-
ed. (see Vikør 1993, 208–209). This shows
that changing language habits might be a
difficult and risky task, in this case es-
pecially, perhaps, because the change applies
to the spoken language.
8.2. A standard language reform may
after some time either be accepted by the
language community and practiced by the
language users, or it may fail. Another
possibility is that the reform only is being
accepted and practiced by a part of the
population and thus becomes a source of
language conflict, or it may even stop on the
half-way (Daneš 1988, 1513). The question
then often arises whether it is reasonably to
reverse a half-way accomplished language
reform (for example in the Norwegian case
mentioned above). Language planners have
often been too optimistic when planning
language reforms, and have not always con-
sidered all the factors involved in planning
language and language attitude change.
“Historical, political, economic, religious,
educational, judicial, and social factors all
have to be disentangled. As a consequence,
it is hardly surprising that those who study
this subject have not yet reached the stage
when they can explain why some planning
proposals succeed, whereas others fail” (Crys-
tal 1987, 364). According to Daost (1997,
451) and others, language reforms rely on at-
titudes about language. When one knows the
uncertainty connected to attitudes control
and change, one is also forced to be careful
when language reform is being planned.
Otherwise an increasing task for language
planners might be to redo und undo lan-
guage planning (cf. the title of Clyne 1997).
2393
As language planning often is a part of lan-
guage policy and a function of the state,
“language groups which are excluded from
the institutions of state power are likely to
see policy as a threat” (Tollefson, 1991, 201).
Sociolinguists would probably claim that
language planning and language policy
never should be done without a democratic
aim. As pointed out by Kaplan/Baldauf
(1997, 82), those who have a language which
“will be in some way modified must accept
the proposed modifications as really being
in their best interests, and those who are im-
plementing the language change need to per-
ceive that their proposals must be ‘sold’ not
only to the recipients of change but to the
entire population.”
9. Literature (selected)
Baldauf, Richard B. Jr. (1982) “The Language
Situation in American Samoa: Planners, Plans,
and Planning”, in: Language Planning Newsletters
8(1), 1–6.
Clyne, Michael (ed.) (1997) Undoing and Redoing
Corpus Planning, Berlin/New York.
Cooper, Robert L. (1989) Language Planning and
Social Change, Cambridge.
Crystal, David (1987) The Cambridge Encyclo-
pedia of Language, Cambridge/New York/Port
Chester/Melbourne/Sydney.
Daneš, František (1988) “Herausbildung und
Refom von Standardsprachen”, in: Socioling-
uistics/Soziolinguist ik. An International Hand-
book of the Science of Language and Society 1–2
(1987–1988), Ammon, U./Dittmar, N./Mattheier,
K. J., eds., Berlin/New York, 1506–1516.
Daoust, Denice (1997) “Language Planning and
Language Reform”, in: The Handbook of Socio-
linguistics, Coulmas, F., ed., Oxford, 436–452.
Eastman, Carol M. (1983) Language Planning. An
Introduction. San Francisco.
Ferguson, Charles A. (1962) “The Language Fac-
tor in National Development”, in: Anthropologi-
cal Linguistics 4 (1), 23–27.
– (1968) “Language Development”, in: Language
Problems of Developing Nations, Fishman, J. A./
Ferguson, C. A./Das Gupta, J., eds., New York,
27–35.
Fishman, Joshua A., ed., (1974) Advances in Lan-
guage Planning. The Hague.
Fishman, Joshua A./Ferguson, Charles A./Das
Gupta, Jyotindra, eds., (1968) Language Problems
of Developing Nations, New York.
Haugen, Einar (1959) “Planning for a Standard
Language in Modern Norway”, in: Anthropologi-
cal Linguistics, 8–21.
2394
– (1966) Language Planning and Language Con-
flict. The Case of Modern Norwegian. Cambridge,
Mass.
– (1972) The Ecology of Language. Essays by
Einar Haugen, Dil, A.S. (ed.), Stanford, CA .
– (1983) “The Implementation of Corpus Plan-
ning: Theory and Practice”, in: Progress in Lan-
guage Planning, Cobarrubias, J./Fishman, J. A.,
eds., Berlin, 269–290.
– (1987) “Language Planning”, in: Socioling-
uistics/Soziolinguistik. An International Hand-
book of the Science of Language and Society 1–2
(1987–1988), Ammon, U./Dittmar, N./Mattheier,
K. J., eds., Berlin/New York, 626–637.
– (1997[1966]): “Language Standardization”, in:
Sociolinguistics. A Reader and Coursebook, Coup-
land, N./Jaworski, A., eds., London/New York,
341–352.
Hudson, Richard A. (1996) Sociolinguistics, 2nd
ed., Cambridge.
Jahr, Ernst H. (ed.) (1993) Language Conflict and
Language Planning (Trends in Linguistics, Studies
and Monographs 72). Berlin/New York.
Kaplan, Robert B. (1989) “Language Planning vs.
Planning Language”, in: Language, Learning and
Community, Candlin, C. H./McNamara, T. F.,
eds., Sydney, 193–203.
Kaplan, Robert B./Baldauf, Richard B. Jr. (1997)
Language Planning From Practice to Theory
(Multilingual Matters 118), Clevedon/Philadelp-
hia/Toronto/Sydney/Johannesburg.
Karam, Francis X. (1974) “Towards a Definition
of Language Planning”, in: Advances in Language
Planning, Fishman, J. A., ed., The Hague,
103–124.
Kloss, Heinz (1978) Die Entwicklung neuer ger-
manischer Kultursprachen seit 1800, 2nd ed., Düs-
seldorf.
Macaulay, R. (1973) “Double Standards”, in:
American Anthropologist 75: 1324–1337.
241. Language Planning – Language Determination
Sprachplanung – Sprachdeterminierung
1. To choose a language: Language planning
and language determination
2. The how and and why of language
determination
3. Impediments and challenges to language
determination
4. Perspectives
5. Literature (selected)
XI. Application
Mac Donnacha, Joe (2000): “An Integrated Lan-
guage Planning Model”, in: Language Problems &
Language Planning 24 (1), 11–35.
Mioni, Alberto M. (1988) “Standardization Pro-
cesses and Linguistic Repertoires in Africa and
Europe: Some Comparative Remarks”, in: Vari-
ation and Convergence. Studies in Social Dialectol-
ogy, Auer, P./di Lucio, A., eds., Berlin/New York,
295–320.
Nahir, M. (1984) “Language Planning Goals: a
Classification”, in: Language Problems & Lan-
guage Planning 8, 294–327.
Pei, Mario (1966) Glossary of Linguistic Terminol-
ogy, New York/London.
Rubin, Joan/Jernudd, Björn H. (1971) Can Lan-
guage be Planned? Sociolinguistic Theory and
Practice for Developing Nations, Honolulu, Ha-
waii.
Skyum-Nielsen, Peder (1979) “Et overblik over de
instanser der (i Danmark) udfører sproglig råd-
givning”, in: Sprognormer i Norden (= Nydanske
Studier & Almen kommunikationsteori 12),
Hansen, E./Skyum-Nielsen, P., eds., Copenhagen,
136–154.
Tauli, Valter (1968) Introduction to a Theory of
Language Planning, Uppsala.
Tollefson, James W. (1991) Planning Language,
Planning Inequality, London/New York.
Vikør, Lars (1993) The Nordic Languages. Their
Status and Interrelations (Nordic Language Secre-
tariat, Publ. no. 14), Oslo.
– (1993b) “Principles of Corpus Planning – as Ap-
plied to the Spelling Reforms of Indonesia and
Malaysia”, in: Jahr, E. H., ed., Language Conflict
and Language Planning, Berlin, 279–298.
Vikør, Lars S. (1994) Språkplanlegging. Prinsipp
og praksis, 2nd. ed., Oslo.
Helge Omdal, Kristiansand (Norway)
1. To choose a language:
Language planning and language
determination
The term language planning was introduced
to sociolinguistics in the late 1950s (Haugen
1959) and refers to future-oriented and con-
scious activities that are aimed at influenc-