The Ecology of Language Planning in Timor-Leste: A Study of Language Policy, Planning and Practices in Identity Construction

In this chapter, the author examines the ambivalence of language policy in Puerto Rico from 1898 to the present from times When United States of America (U.S.) won the Spanish–American War in 1898, to the present. The vernacular language prior to U.S. occupation was Spanish but after Spain transferred colonial powers to the U.S., English was imposed as a new official language. The uncertainty of language use of government, education, and business permeated into the daily lives of Puerto Ricans, as a manifestation of colonialism, which became an intrusion to their identities. Currently, Puerto Ricans, as American citizens, travel freely back and forth between the island and mainland U.S., and this freedom of movement has created a Puerto Rican diaspora that impacts the island’s language planning and policies, and more specifically educational policies and practices. This movement affects youth because they have to negotiate the linguistic demands and academic expectations of both USA and Puerto Rico. In addition, within the context of the 21st century, Puerto Rico’s current political status, language policies, and the influence of globalization continue to infringe on their definition of national, social, familiar, and individual identities. The author provides insights into possibilities for adequate bilingual education opportunities for Puerto Ricans in U.S. and Puerto Rico.

This paper explores in a miniature scale what language planning and language policy are, and the impact they have had on the education system of Bangladesh. In doing so, certain sociolinguistic aspects like choosing of national language, official language, how to adopt language policy and planning have been dealt with. It discusses the current condition of the English language teaching and learning in Bangladesh with reference to its history since the independence of the country. It has emphasized upon the role of teachers, students, specialists and researchers so that appropriate planning and policy can be drawn regarding English teaching and learning in the country. It includes a couple of suggestions regarding the issue. Keywords : language planning, language policy, national language, and second language DOI : 10.7176/JEP/10-14-11 Publication date :May 31 st 2019

Language choice in the newly independent Republic of East Timor can be usefully examined in the wider context of language policy in multilingual states. The present article reports on ethnographic research investigating official and popular discourses of language and identity in East Timor and the role of past and present language policies and practices in shaping national and social identity. It focuses on the discursive reconstruction of identity through five official instruments of language policy development. Hostile discourses in the Australian and Indonesian press towards the choice of Portuguese (the former colonial language) and Tetum (the endogenous lingua franca) as official languages provided the context for the investigation. A persistent theme in these discourses is that English and/or Indonesian would be preferable choices. The article puts these discourses into perspective by presenting findings from two data sets: (i) the 2004 National Census and (ii) analysis of the discourses of 78 participants in semi-structured interviews and student focus groups. The census shows clear signs of the revival of Portuguese and the reinvigoration of Tetum. It also shows how diverse linguistic identities have become in East Timor. The research findings show that there is less hostility to official language policy than claimed in the Australian and Indonesian press. However, the findings also emphasise the urgent need to reconstruct an inclusive, plurilingual national identity that can encompass diversity.

Language choice in the newly independent Republic of East Timor can be usefully examined in the wider context of language policy in multilingual states. The present article reports on ethnographic research investigating official and popular discourses of language and identity in East Timor and the role of past and present language policies and practices in shaping national and social identity. It focuses on the discursive reconstruction of identity through five official instruments of language policy development. Hostile discourses in the Australian and Indonesian press towards the choice of Portuguese (the former colonial language) and Tetum (the endogenous lingua franca) as official languages provided the context for the investigation. A persistent theme in these discourses is that English and/or Indonesian would be preferable choices. The article puts these discourses into perspective by presenting findings from two data sets: (i) the 2004 National Census and (ii) analysis of the discourses of 78 participants in semi-structured interviews and student focus groups. The census shows clear signs of the revival of Portuguese and the reinvigoration of Tetum. It also shows how diverse linguistic identities have become in East Timor. The research findings show that there is less hostility to official language policy than claimed in the Australian and Indonesian press. However, the findings also emphasise the urgent need to reconstruct an inclusive, plurilingual national identity that can encompass diversity.

Sociolinguistics as an interdisciplinary science joins language and society to provide knowledge on their relationship and interaction. Language planners and policy makers can use this science to make accurate decisions. This study examined language policy and the strategies used by the public to shape the linguistic landscape of Petaling Jaya, in the state of Selangor, Malaysia. The study focused on the patterns of language use on private and government signage to examine whether the top-down language policy, was being complied with. The samplings included 400 photographs of signboards of shops, restaurants, internet cafes, and offices. Results suggested that majority of signboards are bilingual or multilingual. Sign users apparently comply with the official policy particularly with regard to the national language Bahasa Melayu (BM) in terms of font size and language sequencing. However, some shopkeepers tend to use strategies to circumvent the policy. Simultaneous accommodation and resistance to the official policy characterizes these strategies, some of which are driven by commercial motives. A common approach is to create names in the English language. A recurrent strategy is that of using multiple codes or languages on a single signboard. We conclude that power apparently sets the tone for language ideology on signboards, and that language ideology in Malaysia ‘serves to rationalize existing social structures and dominant linguistic practices, particularly through their institutionalization in official language policy’ (Lanza and Woldemariam, 2009: 189). However, we suggest that it is important that policies with regard to linguistic landscape be based on sociolinguistic science including cultural, racial and political demands.

Nearly two decades have passed since Kaplan and Baldauf [1997. Language planning from practice to theory. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters] drew attention to the dearth of language policy and planning (LPP) in higher education. Despite the continuing inflow of English as an additional language students into Anglophone universities, and a boom in English-medium instruction policies in non-Anglophone tertiary institutions [Dearden, J. (2014). English as a medium of instruction: A growing global phenomenon. British Council], LPP research remains relatively underdeveloped in higher education. We suggest that current understandings of academic language policy and planning in higher education would benefit from contextualised analyses of actors and agency [Chua, C. S. K., & Baldauf, R. B. (2011). Micro language planning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 936–951). New York, NY: Routledge; Zhao, S. H., 2011. Actors in language planning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. II, pp. 905–923). New York, NY: Routledge; Zhao, S. H., & Baldauf, R. B. (2012). Individual agency in language planning: Chinese script reform as a case study. Language Problems & Language Planning, 36(1), 1–24]. In order to address this gap, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 10 academic language program planners at different universities across Australia. We examined how the micro-level processes of program development and implementation were both constrained and enabled by the participation of different actor groups, operating at different levels (micro, meso, macro) and each with their own capacity to influence change. We conclude by arguing that coherent university-wide language policies, formulated by decision-making bodies representative of a variety of stakeholder groups and sensitive to program implementation needs at the micro level, represent a step towards improving the current situation.

The current paper describes a study that sought to determine the beliefs, practices, and needs of parents living in Montreal, Quebec, who were raising their children bi/multilingually. The parents (N = 27) participated in a total of nine focus group and individual interviews in which they discussed their family language policies (language ideologies, practices, and actions taken to maintain a language). Through rounds of deductive and inductive coding and analysis, family language policies regarding English and/or French were compared with policies regarding heritage languages. The participants’ family language policies were further examined in light of Quebec’s official language policy of interculturalism. Findings indicate a complex co-existence of family and official language policy in which parents both support Quebec’s official language policy by converging towards French as a common public language and questioning the policy’s stance on official institutional support for heritage languages.

This monograph discusses South Korea?s language situation in a language policy and planning context. This monograph consists of four parts. Part 1 presents a genetic, typological and sociolinguistic description of South Korea?s national language, and an overview of minority languages, including English as well as other languages, recently transported into the country by migrant workers and foreign brides. Also included is information on the native writing system called Hankul. Part 2 focuses on language spread and maintenance through the national education system and other means. Part 3 concerns the major issues in South Korea?s language planning and policy, including orthographic reforms, lexical purification, the use and teaching of Chinese characters, digitization of Korean, and ?linguistic reunification? of North and South Korea. The final part of the monograph explores future prospects of South Korea?s language policy, some of the major issues being the ?linguistic reunification? of North and South Korea, the status and role of English and Chinese, and emergent multilingualism. The monograph also contains some thoughts on how language planning and policy might need to develop in the future, especially with respect to issues that do not directly concern the national language, e.g. emergent multilingualism.

The current study examines bilingual children as language policy agents in the interplay between official language policy and education policy at three Swedish-medium preschools in Finland. For this purpose we monitored nine Finnish-Swedish bilingual children aged 3 to 5 years for 18 months. The preschools were located in three different parts of Finland, in milieux with varying degrees of language dominance. The children were video recorded during their normal daytime routines in early childhood education and care. Three types of communicative situations were analyzed: an educator-led small group activity, free play with friends, and an activity in which one child was playing alone. Representative dialogs were selected to illustrate the children’s agency in constructing and enacting bilingual and/or monolingual language policies. Our analysis shows, firstly, that official national language policies can be enacted in different ways depending on the wider practice structures of the site; and, secondly, that each bilingual child has a unique agency and an active role in the construction of not only the monolingual policy but also a bilingual policy within the frames of early childhood education and care.

유고슬라비아 사회주의 연방 공화국의 붕괴 이후, 신생 크로아티아 공화국은 연방의 국가 언어였던 세르보크로아티아어의 한 축을 이루었던 크로아티아어가 세르비아어와는 완전히 별개의 언어임을 선언하며, 언어 문제를 정치화하기 시작한다. 이 연구는 우선, 언어를 정치화하는 실제 정책과 계획인, 언어 정책과 언어 계획의 개념과 유형을 일반적인 논의를 통해 정리하고 실제 이것들이 20세기 크로아티아에서 어떤 방식으로 전개되고, 어떤 결과를 가져왔는지를 연구하고자 하였다. 이를 위해 1991년 이후 국가주도로 진행되어온 크로아티아 언어 계획을 ‘지위 계획(status planning)’, ‘자료계획(corpus planning)’, ‘습득 계획(acquisition planning)’으로 분류하여 크로아티아어의 변화 과정, 새로운 크로아티아어 규범화 과정과 쟁점, 현재의 언어상황을 크로아티아 민족 정체성과 연계하여 분석하였다. 크로아티아 언어 계획 연구는 시대적으로 1991년 크로아티아 독립 국가 설립 이후의 기간에 초점을 맞추었지만, 그 결과로 나타나는 현재의 언어 상황을 이해할 수 있는 포괄적인 발전과정을 포함하여 설명하고자 하였다. ‘민족 = 언어 = 영토 = 국가’를 동일시하는 유고슬라비아 지역의 언어와 민족 정체성에 대한 복잡한 역사와 크로아티아 언어 계획 사례는 언어 정체성, 언어 정책 및 언어 계획 문제 전반에 대한 광범위한 부분에 대한 이해를 제공할 수 있을 것이다.Following the collapse of Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Croatian administration was declared to be a separate language, distinct from Serbian, and linguistic issues became highly politicized. This study first summarizes the concepts and types of ‘language policy’ and ‘language planning’, which are the actual policies and plans for language politics, and discusses how these develop in the 20th century in Croatia. Then, the Croatian language plan, which has been led by the state since 1991, is divided into ‘status planning’, ‘corpus planning’ and ‘acquisition planning’. According to this classification, the process of change of Croatian, the process of new normatization of Croatian language and issues, and current language situation are analyzed in connection with Croatian ‘national identity’. It focuses on the period following the creation of an independent Croatian state in 1991, but encompasses broader historical developments to provide a context for understanding the contemporary linguistic situation. The complex history of language standardization in the Yugoslav lands and the emphasis on language planning in Croatia make this an especially interesting case study that offers insight into wider debates about linguistic identity, language policy, and language planning issues in general.

The natural first question is: What is language policy? The question is commonly asked in books on the topic but concrete definitions are less common than discussions of language policy in terms of types, goals, or examples. This chapter will take both approaches by first examining and synthesizing definitions already in circulation and then looking at some example language policies to see how these definitions hold up. Complicating the question is the relationship between language policy and the term that preceded it, language planning. Most would agree that language policy and language planning are closely related but different activities. Some argue that language planning subsumes language policy (Kaplan and Baldauf 1997) while others argue that language policy subsumes language planning (Schiffman 1996). For the title of this book, the term language policy is adopted for two reasons: (1) terminological simplicity, and (2) within accepted definitions of language planning, there is an assumption that some agent(s) makes a plan intended to influence language forms or functions, yet, there are many examples of language policy that are not intentional and/or not planned. However, throughout much of the book I will use language planning and policy, often referred to as LPP, both out of respect for the tradition of research that gave rise to the field (language planning) and The historical trajectory because the two fields have, for all intents and purposes, coalesced into one (Hornberger2006a).

Most nations in mainland Southeast Asia and elsewhere have one national language as a focus of national identity and unity, supported by a language policy which promotes and develops this language. Indigenous and immigrant minority groups within each nation may be marginalized; their languages may become endangered. Some of the official national language policies and ethnic policies of mainland Southeast Asian nations aim to support both a national language and indigenous minority languages, but usually the real policy is less positive. It is possible to use sociolinguistic and educational strategies to maintain the linguistic heritage and diversity of a nation, develop bilingual skills among minority groups, and integrate minorities successfully into the nations where they live, but this requires commitment and effort from the minorities themselves and from government and other authorities. The main focus of this paper is two case studies: one of language policy and planning in Myanmar, whose language policy and planning has rarely been discussed before. The other is on the Lisu, a minority group in Myanmar and surrounding countries, who have been relatively successful in maintaining their language.

ABSTRACTThis paper explores the recent policy decision about the teaching of Ottoman Turkish at high schools in Turkey and unpacks its historical, political, and social undercurrents. It theoretically rests upon Spolsky's [2004. Language policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Language management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press] and Shohamy’s (2006. Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. London: Routledge] work on language policy and management at the state level, and Liddicoat and Baldauf’s [2008. Language planning in local contexts: Agents, contexts and interactions. In A. J. Liddicoat & R. B. Baldauf (Eds.), Language planning and policy: Language planning in local contexts (pp. 3–17). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters] and Chua and Baldauf’s [2011. Micro language planning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (Vol. 2, pp. 936–951). New York, NY: Routledge] explorations of micro language planning and agency. After providing background on the orthographic revolution in 1928 and the subsequent lexical purification in Turkey, this paper analyzes the policy decision about the incorporation of Ottoman Turkish into the high school curriculum. The analysis leads to three main observations. First, this policy decision emerged as part of the national identity reconstruction efforts stage-managed by the ruling political party aligned with neo-Ottomanist ideals. Second, the government has ideologically constructed the teaching of Ottoman Turkish at high school as essential to rebuild the connection with Ottoman-Islamic heritage lost purportedly after the Turkish Language Reform. Third, save for the attempts to address the issues about linguistic expertise and fairness in selecting teachers, this policy mostly neglected the micro-level agentive responses. This paper closes with conclusions that connect the analysis of the Ottoman Turkish case in Turkey to broader language planning research.

This discussion makes a modest attempt to address some of the ways in which language planning and policy are relevant to world Englishes. The entry deals with six topics related to language planning and policy formation and how they relate to world Englishes. The first section deals with key definitions of language policy and planning. The next section discusses corpus planning, status planning, and acquisition planning. Using examples, it demonstrates how status planning can be achieved with or without official planning or policy designation. The third section discusses how unofficial language policies emerged (or were “achieved”) in early colonial contexts. The next section elaborates on the differences between official and de facto language planning and discusses the role of language strategist in promoting world Englishes. This is followed by the presentation of a typology of language rights and restrictions with examples linked to world Englishes. Next, there is a brief discussion of the postmodern critique of language rights discourse linked to language policy followed by a conclusion.

This article discusses Canada's governance of official language minorities since the 1990s. More specifically, it examines the growing participation of official language minority groups in the governance of policy initiatives in sectors such as community development, culture, and economic development. It argues that horizontal governance is transforming our understanding of language planning, but also that official language minorities believe they need to maintain political pressure on the Canadian government for more positive measures towards their empowerment. In other words, horizontal governance is no substitute for language politics. Firstly, the article reviews recent debates on the politics and governance of identity-based policies such as language policies. Secondly, it provides information on Canada's official language policy and on the context which led to development of a new governance of official language minorities. Thirdly, it discusses results from a series of studies which help understand the resistance of official language minorities towards horizontal governance. In conclusion, the article argues for more research on the impact of horizontal governance on language planning.