Search Results

This chapter first lays out the aim and approach of the book. The aim is to analyse the Greek language question within the context of nation-building and identity formation. Drawing on a variety of sources (literary, historical, and combative) and with the help of linguistics, literary studies, and anthropology, the book presents a historical study of the Greek language controversy and identifies its historical, political, social, and linguistic causes and ramifications. Next, drawing especially on the work of Joshua Fishman, John Joseph, and Yasir Suleiman, the mutual influence of language, nationalism, and national identity is assessed. Then the relationship between language planning and political power is discussed. The chapter concludes with a brief survey of the concept of diglossia (including the genealogy of the term).

This chapter discusses the linguistic theory and practice of the chief proponent of language reform at the time, Adamantios Korais (1748-1833). The origins of Korais' linguistic theory are traced to the work of 18th-century theorists, particularly Condillac. His proposals for the reform of the Modern Greek language are analysed in terms of the following: his worship of ancient Greek perfection; his defence of Modern Greek against the aspersions cast on it by the archaists; and his ‘correction’ of Modern Greek according to the morphological rules of Ancient Greek. The chapter ends with an assessment of Korais' contribution to the language question and an account of the impact of Korais' ideas on later developments. The assessment is broadly negative, because Korais lent his enormous prestige to the already existing habit of mixing the modern language with grammatical features of the ancient, thereby encouraging later Greeks to use yet more ancient features in their writing.

This chapter begins with a brief account of variation in language use in Greek in the late 18th century. Then the chief participants in the language controversy during this period are introduced, and their arguments concerning the language question are discussed. First, the archaists (those who argued that the ancient language was the only variety of Greek appropriate for writing on philosophy), beginning with Evgenios Voulgaris, who can be said to have initiated the language controversy in 1766 by attacking those who wrote on philosophy in ‘vulgar language’; then the compromisers such as Moisiodax, who argued for the use of a variety based on the spoken language, but with a large number of concessions made to Ancient Greek in both vocabulary and morphology; and lastly the vernacularists, who argued for the use of an uncompromising version of the spoken language for written purposes.

This essay argues that an examination of the cultural effects of decolonisation can yield a clearer appreciation of the combined role of both coloniser and colonised in the making of the postcolonial order. Taking an approach informed by Michel Foucault, Jean-François Bayart and Romain Bertrand, it shows that the ethnic tensions which erupted over questions of national language planning, multilingualism, and culture in postcolonial Malaya, and persist through to the present, cannot be explained away as a simple “colonial legacy” inflicted by British divide-and-rule policies. They must also be recognised as the result of a particular hegemonic configuration, produced and maintained through the agency of postcolonial subjects themselves.

This chapter examines language planning and policy in Singaporean late modernity. It discusses Singaporean language policy's attempts to manage the tension between modernity and tradition and argues that a sociolinguistic ordering around notions of ethnicity and nation does not fit easily with the multilingual dynamics of late modern societies. It contends that Singapore's language policy needs to appreciate that patterns of multilingualism are increasingly constructed around the dynamics of language choice and change in terms of a logic of lifestyle consumption.

This opening chapter contextualises the key themes of the book within the sociological and historical setting of Gaelic in Scotland, introducing the central issue of language revitalisation. Building on this key theme, the chapter then discusses the role assigned to bilingual immersion education in current initiatives to maintain and renew minority languages. It then outlines the overall structure of the book, with a view to situating the wider study against this conceptual backdrop. Gaelic has been spoken in Scotland for over 1500 years, and was used over a major part of northern Britain in the medieval period, yet the language has now been in a state of decline for almost a millennium. This chapter considers policymakers’ response to this contextual backdrop in order to introduce the key themes of the monograph.

This chapter examines language ideologies in a small community (Guernsey, Channel Islands) which reflect wider issues concerning the aims and effectiveness of language-related activities. Ideologies are largely unstated yet they profoundly influence language planning and policy at both personal and public levels. Although there has been a shift over the last 30 or so years towards broadly positive overt attitudes in favour of maintenance of Guernsey’s indigenous language, it seems that ingrained covert negative attitudes linger in some sections of the community. From these observations the authors identify two main divergent trends in beliefs and ideologies concerning who has authority to speak on behalf of ‘the community’, and to make decisions regarding the future of an endangered language. The authors relate their observations to the concept of prior ideological clarification, and compare rhetoric on language maintenance and revitalization with actions and outcomes.

The first chapter forms the introduction to the book. Modern Norway stands out linguistically as unique in the European context. First, it has for more than a century maintained two written standards of the same language; and, second, popular dialects have been and are in use everywhere in society, even in Parliament and among Government members. This book gives an explanation for how such a situation could emerge and develop. It invites the reader to reflect on the limits of language planning and especially the sociolinguistic and sociopolitical boundaries within which language planning can operate and be successful. The chapter gives a short survey of Norway’s history, land and people, and a presentation of Haugen’s 1966 model of language planning. Three periods of Norwegian language planning are identified: 1814-1917 (the nationalist period), 1917-66 (the sociopolitical period), and 1966-2002 (the transition period from a single standard strategy (1814-1966) to a two-standard strategy (from 2002)).

Over the last few years, the discursive construction of another myth, the myth of global English, has emerged involving the commodification of English. In recent years “global English” has emerged as a major area of sociolinguistic research. Some deconstruction of the myths created in this work has already been carried out, but no one has yet adequately tackled an analysis of the ideologies that lie behind expressions such as “English as the world language”, “English as the global language”. The example of English in Switzerland is used to argue against uncritically introducing English into national school systems at the expense of other languages. The chapter shows how dangerous it is not to take such discursive moves seriously and to counteract them with empirical work. Language planners need to be clear about what they mean when they talk about “a global language” and about how that message may be misconstrued by political bodies.

In this chapter, a brief review of the approaches to LPP is provided. Then a new LPP framework which is specifically useful for understanding bilingual education in Southeast Asian contexts is proposed. The cases of Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia are discussed in light of this framework, and innovative approaches to bilingual education are discussed with a view to exploring possible fruitful directions for tackling LPP difficulties and dilemmas experienced in these societies.

The final chapter sums up the book, with two major conclusions: 1. Far-reaching results of language planning are possible if the planning is consistant with the dominant contemporary ideology. This happened during the nationalist period 1814-1917, which must be viewed as a successful period. 2. If language planning involves crossing important sociolinguistic boundaries, it will need extensive backing from a powerful political movement in order to succeed. From 1917 to 1966, during the sociopolitical period, language planning policy of this type was attempted, but did not succeed. The pan-Norwegian language planning policy was terminated 2002. This decision by Parliament ended the country’s attempt to develop a merged written standard, and thus accepted a permanent two-standard situation. As for the spoken language, wide-spread dialect use continues unabated to this day and is generally seen as normal linguistic behaviour. All this suggests that linguistically, Norway will continue as a special case into the forseeable future.

In this chapter, debates revolving around the global spread of English, linguistic imperialism, World Englishes and the theories of postcolonial performativity are introduced. Is English a cultural imperialistic tool of the West, or is English being increasingly hybridized and used for their own daily purposes by many Southeast Asian people? How is language policy and planning (LPP) related to the creation of social and educational (in) equalities? The chapter discusses these issues and concludes with the proposal that Southeast Asian postcolonial societies need to develop their own LPP frameworks.