Review: Language Policy by Bernard Spolsky

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Language Policy by Bernard Spolsky. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. 262 pp. ISBN 0-521-80461-2. According to the 2000 United States Census, nearly one in five residents in the U.S. speak a language other than English (Shin & Bruno, 2003). Yet in recent years, formal acceptance of linguistic diversity has become an increasingly divisive issue within the U.S. (Huntington, 2004; Schiffman, 1996). Nowhere is this more apparent than in recent policymaking around issues of language. Arguably, language policy is a product of linguistic ideology shaped by the interests of entities ranging from peer groups to nation-states. From a critical stance, language policy can be construed as a form of political, ethnic and cultural domination (Wright, 2004). In essence language is power, and maintaining control over a population’s language practices serves as a significant expression of cultural and political hegemony. In his book, Language Policy, Bernard Spolsky offers scholars and practitioners a provocative introduction to the controversies surrounding language politics and policymaking. So firmly entrenched are the biases expressed through language, that Spolsky himself must question whether his own treatment of these issues is not merely a reflection of his particular subjectivities. He asks, “Can one write about language policy without a personal view about the desirability of linguistic diversity?” (p. ix). The author acknowledges the benefits of foregrounding positions of advocacy versus neutrality when engaging in these important debates. Yet despite these concerns, Spolsky does not conceal his own support for linguistic diversity, rather using his own positionality as the leitmotif for the book’s 13 chapters. It is through this lens that Spolsky responds to the two most contentious questions which lay at the heart of his book: 1) How can language policy be recognized?; and 2) How can language be managed? In Chapter 1, Spolsky argues that language policies are inevitably political in nature. Although language conflicts alone may not be so contentious as to cause all out war, language has played a role in igniting highly controversial and in many cases violent events in a number of countries. For instance, in 2000, China officially banned the use of foreign words, as well as the “misuse of Chinese (p. 2)”. In the United States, voters passed Proposition 227 in California and Proposition 203 in Arizona, eliminating bilingual education programs. What these examples seem to demonstrate is a confounding of language, identity, and definitions of social membership. The legislative action taken in both California and Arizona suggest a coalescing around pronounced anti-immigration sentiments in those states (Crawford, 1999). In presenting these examples, Spolsky demonstrates that language is not just a means of communication, but also a form of political and cultural ideology.