Ch.+32+by+James+Tollefson


 * CHAPTER 32 **
 * Limitations of Language Policy and Planning **


 * JAMES TOLLEFSON **

Language policy and planning first was practiced in the 1960s and 1970s. This new understanding of language in society could be used in practical programs of “modernization” and “development” helpful for “developing” societies. An explosive growth in research was identified in the early stages of LPP.


 * Early Development in LPP **

Das Gupta (1970) argues that LPP could play a major role in achieving the goals of political/administrative integration and sociocultural unity. This early research focused on the analysis of language planning, language choice and literacy in processes of “nationism”. In the early period of LPP there was a serious understanding of different forms of social organizations, and the relationship between language structure and language functions. There was also a research in microsociolinguistics (sequencing, code-switching and systematicity in style and register).
 * Major Concerns of Research **


 * Three assumptions in early LPP **

In early LPP research practitioners wanted to find the ways of making social and political transformations by changing the linguistic situation. And thus they emphasised the role of assumptions in this. And there were three assumptions. One of the assumptions of early LPP was optimism. There was a belief that LPP would benefit ethnic and linguistic minorities. The second assumption of the early LPP was the emphasis on efficiency, rationality and cost-benefit analysis seen as the way of measuring the plans and policies in all contexts. Different authors suggested different terms as means of measuring the effectiveness of LPP decisions. Some of them separated LPP from politics which was a great failure. The third assumption of LPP was that the central focus of LPP research was nation-state. This fact had two primary effects. First was the fact that the main examinees were the government agencies and this created limitations. And the second was that most of the researchers were interested in national politics and plans rather than language practices.


 * Disillusionment and critique **

According to Tollefson (2002) there are three main critiques that refer to Language policies and planning (LPP):
 * 1) 1. The failure of many plans and policies to achieve the goals of political and sociocultural integration. As a result, the early optimistic view was replaced by scepticism about the work of language planners (Cluver, 1992). Moreover, researchers suggested another solution/way called “systems approach” or an “ecological” perspective for LPP (Clayton, 1999; Cluver, 1992; Ohly, 1989; Skutnabb-Kangas, 2000).
 * 2) <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">2. The failure to pay attention to the language attitudes and practices of communities that are somehow affected/ influenced by LPP ( e.g. the ways in which language minorities are transform national plans within their local communities). Despite, LPP research did not really study/observe how business enterprise, NGOs, or other professional associations (groups, teachers, etc.) are involved in LPP practice.
 * 3) <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">3. LPP is often used by dominant groups to maintain their political and economic advantage. Instead it should have more emphasis on the minority population in developing nations.


 * Unplanned Language Planning in Social Engineering Planning**

It appears that unplanned language planning is often used in the sphere of social engineering. Of interest is Popper’s (1961) classification of social engineers. He distinguishes two subgroups of engineers: those absorbed in “piecemeal” engineering and those absorbed in “holistic” engineering. The former group admits of the fact that learning is possible only when the previous mistakes are acknowledged, whereas the latter lacks this cautious and self-critical character of actions. The author notes certain similarity between language planning and Popper’s understanding of unplanned planning in social engineering. He notes that language planners can also be characterized as belonging to the //piecemeal// or //holistic// groups. //Piecemeal// language planners, just like //piecemeal// engineers, plan and implement their actions in a given project based on empirical data. This kind of scientific objectivity is contrasted to //holistic// language planners’ subjectivity manifested in their language planning style. The most striking point of the chapter is that language problems are sometimes created because of people’s subjective perceptions of a given linguistic issue. I think that an illustration of this can be the perpetual problem of the number of cases in Armenian. Some linguists claim that there are 5 cases in Armenian and some others – 7. What is this if not a virtual problem? Linguists complicate their own work dwelling into numeric calculations instead of probing into the very essence of the category. This is my subjective viewpoint though. The author explains that linguists go so deep into the matter as to offer solutions for the virtual problems created by themselves.

**<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt;">Future directions in LPP **

<span style="background-color: white; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; text-align: justify;">Now it is assumed that LPP is not only important for developing states but for all the states. In this response to the critique of LPP researchers have proposed new models such can be the systems approach or ecological model.

<span style="background-color: white; display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; text-align: justify;">Which social processes and factors are most relevant to LPP? Though LPP theory is not yet properly developed to answer the above mentioned question, attention to both the local and global context will be essential. It is believed that the following issues will be considered by LPP researchers in the near future:

<span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; text-align: justify;">1. As in many instances state policymakers have used LPP to further marginalize already dominated populations and they failed to do that, and such exploitation is typical of LPP in many contexts, and thus it should be a focus for research.

<span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; text-align: justify;">2. LLP research seldom considered the legal framework of plans and policies. This should be researches as well

<span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; text-align: justify;">3. Understanding the central role of political processes in LLP will help specialists understand how LLP is involved in the pursuit and maintenance of power.

<span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; text-align: justify;">4. Sociology is also important in LLP so LLP specialists can develop new methodologies and establish more direct links to sociologists.

<span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; text-align: justify;">5. A research should be carried out to examine the role of public political discourse and the mass media in LPP processes.

<span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; text-align: justify;">6. Social identity is also very important. In this matter a research can be conducted to see the the importance of social identity.

<span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; text-align: justify;">7. The issue of language and globalization will require new forms of LLP research.

<span style="display: block; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; text-align: justify;">8. Language rights can also be a focus of research.