118x Filetype PDF File size 0.34 MB Source: ofeliagarciadotorg.files.wordpress.com
LanguagePolicy and Planning in LanguageEducation: Legacies, Consequences, and Possibilities TERRENCEG.WILEY OFELIAGARCÍA Center for Applied Linguistics Graduate Center, City University of New York 464640th Street Northwest Urban Education and Hispanic and Washington, DC 20016 Luso-Brazilian Literatures and Languages Email: twiley@cal.org 42 Harmon Avenue Pelham, NY 10803 Email: ogarcia@gc.cuny.edu This article considers the relevance of language policy and planning (LPP) for language education in theUnitedStatesinrelationtothecountry’slongstandingandcontinuingmultilingualism.Inreflecting ontheU.S. context, one striking feature is the absence of a guiding overarching explicit national edu- cational language policy. Language policies and practices may either promote or restrict the teaching of languages. Thus, whether having such a policy would be desirable for promoting the learning of lan- guages depends on a number of factors such as the features of the policy and the extent to which it was adequately resourced, understood, valued, and implemented effectively, just to mention a few. Explicit languageplanningandpolicymakingintheUnitedStates−whenitdoesoccur−tendstobedoneatthe state, local, or institutional levels, or within rather limited domains of federal priorities, such as those related to defense or national security. Beyond formal policies, implicit language practices sometimes havemoreinfluenceonlanguagebehavior.Evenwhenpoliciesareintendedtopromotelanguages,they maynotalwaysbewellconceived, received, resourced, or implemented. Given some of these issues, it is useful to consider the role of agency in language planning and policy (LPP). Even when guided by national or state top-down policy agendas, policies can be interpreted and reinterpreted, by policy intermediaries, agents, administrators, or arbiters (Johnson, 2013). Moreover, within the context of school language policies, at the level of implementation, teachers, parents, and the students themselves help to determine the effectiveness of policies in practice (Menken & García, 2010). Beyond the schools, parents and stakeholders in the community can play significant roles in cre- ating practices that have the force of policy from the bottom up. Given these considerations, this article weighs the role of policy and the legacy of past policies and their consequences; assesses some of the strengths and weaknesses of current policies and practices, both in schools and families and commu- nities; and considers prospects for a more promising future that involves embracing the fundamental multilingualism of U.S. society, communities, and families. In so doing, the article reflects on alterna- tives to U.S. language education policy that would transcend national conceptions of languages so as to leverage speakers’ actual linguistic competence. Keywords: bilingual/dual education; bilingualism/multilingualism; education policy; language policy; translanguaging TRADITIONALCONCEPTSINLPP:CORPUS, STATUS,ANDLANGUAGEACQUISITION The Modern Language Journal,100(Supplement2016) PLANNINGANDTHEIRCONTEMPORARY DOI:10.1111/modl.12303 RELEVANCE 0026-7902/16/48–63 $1.50/0 LPP has traditionally been seen in somewhat ⃝C 2016 The Modern Language Journal technocratic terms, wherein experts attempt Terrence G. Wiley and Ofelia García 49 to solve communication problems related to as coining new terms, reforming spelling, and language diversity. Bright (1992), for example, adoptinganewscript.Itrefers,inshort,tothecre- defined language planning as “a deliberate, ation of new forms, the modification of old ones, systematic, and theory-based attempt to solve the or the selection from alternative forms in a spo- communicationproblemsofacommunitybystudying kenorwritten code” (Cooper, 1989, p. 31). the various languages or dialects it uses, and de- Corpus planning also includes orthography veloping a policy concerning their selection and planning, which centers on the creation or re- use; also sometimes called language engineering form of alphabets, syllabaries, and ideographic orlanguagetreatment”thatisoftenconductedat writing systems. Historical examples include the the national level (p. 310, emphasis added). The reforms of modern Hebrew, Norwegian, and idea that language diversity itself is a problem, Turkish; the promotion of a common spoken rather than the normal condition of human soci- form of Mandarin, Putónghuà, in the People’s eties, has often been inherent in traditional goals Republic of China; along with the simplification for language planning. Offering an alternative to of Chinese characters and the creation of a Ro- the technocratic problem-solving focus, Cooper manized written form, pinyin. Efforts to remove (1989) characterized language planning as the gender bias in languages are also examples of attempt “to influence the behavior of others with corpus planning. Examples of corpus planning respecttotheacquisition,structure,orfunctional also include spelling reforms, such as those allocation of their language codes” (p. 45). He promoted by Noah Webster (1758–1843) in his added: efforts to promote an ‘American’ English to be distinctive from British English (see Wiley, 1996, This definition neither restricts the planners to au- forelaboration).Althoughorthographyplanning thoritative agencies, nor restricts the type of target has been largely a consideration for the planning group, nor specifies an ideal type of planning. Fur- of national languages, it has had implications for theritiscouchedinbehavioralratherthanproblem- instruction of world languages. One example is solving terms. Finally, it implies influence rather than thecaseofteachingChineseintheUnitedStates, changeinasmuchastheformerincludesthemainte- whereprogramshaveincreasinglyshiftedempha- nance of preservation of current behavior, a plausi- sis from the teaching of traditional characters to ble goal of language planning, as well as the change of current behavior. (p. 45; emphasis in the original) simplified, or both. As noted, status planning is focused on the Much earlier, Leibowitz (1969, 1974) had di- language itself, rather than on its speakers, but rectly argued that language planning has as its obviouslythestatusofalanguagehasimplications overt purpose the goal of social control, in- foritsspeakers.Conversely,thestatusofthespeak- cluding the use of policies for discriminatory ers may also have implications for the language purposes. Both the notions of ‘social control’ variety spoken. Status planning is often tied to and ‘influence’ suggest that language planning the formal promotion of one or more languages has a political dimension of ideological con- by national, state, or international governing trol (cf. Fairclough, 2013; Tollefson, 1991; Wiley, bodies. In the United States, status planning has 1996, 2005). From this perspective, the processes also been linked to formal laws or codes designed of language planning and policy formation re- to diminish or restrict the teaching or uses of quire critical scrutiny as they are not neutral in various languages during times of war (Wiley, terms of the social intents and consequences. In 1996,1998).Statusplanningalsohasimplications other words, some policies themselves can create for which varieties or registers of a language are problems. taught. In essence it involves the ‘privileging’ of Conventional views of language planning have alanguagevariety,typicallyasawrittenstandard. focused on two major aspects of language policy: This selection thereby influences social judg- ‘corpus planning’ and ‘status planning,’ each of ments concerning what is ‘proper,’ ‘correct,’ or which focuses on language itself rather than on ‘preferred.’ When a language is taught with the its speakers. Corpus planning “deals with norm literature of ‘high’ culture as its object, prestige selection and codification, as in the writing of varieties become privileged. grammars and the standardization of spelling; Prestige also extends to the labels that ascribe [whereas]statusplanningdealswithinitialchoice status to languages. In a country such as the of language, including attitudes toward alterna- United States, where Spanish functions as a com- tive languages and the political implications of munity, home, or second language for millions various choices” (Bright, 1992, p. 311). Histori- andwasintroducedintheNorthAmericanconti- cally, corpusplanninghasinvolved“activitiessuch nentlongbeforeEnglish,itisironicthatitismost 50 The Modern Language Journal, 100, Supplement 2016 frequently taught as if it were only a ‘foreign’ lan- gual context as somehow new or unprecedented. guage (García, 2014b; Macías, 2014). Over the past three decades, for example, the Language‘acquisitionplanning’isconvention- numberandpercentofthoseage5andolderliv- ally the third dimension of language planning, ing in households where a language other than whichhasthemostrelevanceforeducation,since English was spoken, rose from 23.1 million (11% it typically involves the formulation of policies of the U.S. population) to 78.4 million (25.6%; that guide practice on a large scale, including based on comparisons of 1980 U.S. Census data the determination of which languages will be andtheAmericanCommunitySurvey2007–2011, used as media for instruction (Tollefson, 2013; 5-year sample). It is important to note that each Tollefson & Tsui, 2004). Thus, acquisition plan- external change in global migration flows has of- ning has been centrally related to formation of ten been accompanied by internal debates about educational language policies, both in historical the nature and role of diversity in U.S. society, andcontemporarycontexts. and has brought with it questions about the role of language in education. In response to the di- THEROLEOFAGENCYINLANGUAGE versity of the present, memories of the distant POLICYANDPLANNING past are often imagined to have been more lin- guistically homogeneous. Thus, it is often for- The impetus for overt language planning can gotten that language diversity has always been a be either public or private. As clarified by Jahr major feature of the American social landscape, (1992), “LP is usually conducted according to a and that there is an antecedent history rich declaredprogramoradefinedsetofcriteria,and with the languages and cultures of indigenous with a deliberate goal by officially appointed com- peoples followed by the intrusion of coloniz- mittees or bodies, by private organizations, or by ers and settlers, entangled with imperial rivalries prescriptive linguists working on behalf of official au- amongSpanish,English,French,Portuguese,and thorities.Itsobjectiveistoestablishnorms(primar- Russian colonizers in the Americas. These were ily written)whicharevalidated by high social status; followed by clashes among the descendants of oral norms connected with these written stan- former colonizers, settlers, and blended peoples dards (. . .)” (pp. 12–13, emphasis added). whofashionedforthemselvesnewlymintediden- In some countries there are official, state- tities as ‘native’ citizens or otherwise legitimate sponsored language academies, but in other occupants. These newly ‘native’ Americans ex- countries, such as the United States, this is panded the boundaries of the original ‘nation’ not the case. Weinstein (1979, 1983) makes a through expansionist wars and territorial annex- distinction between two major types of actors ations while populating the workforce and newly in determining societal language choices: (a) incorporatedterritorieswith‘foreign’immigrants governmental planning, which is explicit, official (Wiley, 2014a). By taking a longer view, policy planning, and (b) the influence of key individu- debates about the role of language in education als, whom he calls language strategists. Athirdtype amidst the multilingualism of the present can be of actor, however, may also be strongly shaped seen as new iterations in ongoing contestation or influenced by de facto planners, or ‘arbiters’ andnegotiationofpeoplesofaheterogeneousso- (Johnson, 2013), as in the case of key individ- ciety in a diverse world, shaped by forces of glob- uals in state educational agencies, schools, or alization and struggles related to power, status, universities who help to shape or influence the access to resources, and identity. interpretation, implementation, or resourcing of Language policies can be differentiated in educational language policies. A fourth type of terms of their degree of formality or explicitness. agency involves ‘bottom-up’ efforts of stakehold- Thus, it is useful to distinguish between explicit ers in the communityaswellasparentsandfamily or official policies and those that are implicit members. Bottom-up efforts have been particu- or even tacit. They may also be distinguished larly noteworthy among indigenous communities in terms of their goals or orientations rang- (Hornberger,1996;McCarty,2011;Wiley,2014b). ing from (a) promotion-oriented policies, (b) expediency-oriented accommodations, (c) tole- rance-oriented policies, (d) restriction-oriented LANGUAGEPOLICYORIENTATIONS: policies, (e) repression-oriented policies, (f) OVERCOMINGTHEWEIGHTOFHISTORY polices aimed at erasing the visibility and even his- Based on a focus of present and recent linguis- torical memoryofvariouslanguages,and(g)null tic data, it is tempting to see the current multilin- policies, which refer to the significant absences of policies (see Wiley, 2004, for elaboration). Terrence G. Wiley and Ofelia García 51 United States history generally reflects the full ment (roughly 1914–1925) and its concomitant range of these policy orientations. emphasis on English Only gained momentum Within the U.S. context, constitutional factors bothinresponsetolargeincreasesinlinguistically have worked to moderate what might have been diverse immigrant populations following the U.S. astrongerfederalroleintheformationofeduca- Civil War uptoWorldWarI,andtheninresponse tionalandlanguagepolices.ThroughoutU.S.his- to the alleged threat of enemies during World tory, there has been a tension between so-called War I. In spite of the influence of the American- states’ rights and those of the U.S. federal govern- ization Movement, local, community-based, and ment (McDonald, 2000). In the U.S. federal sys- some parental efforts persisted in attempting to tem, some authority or powers are clearly identi- transmit immigrant and heritage languages after fied in the Constitution as being in the purview World War I (Tamura, 1993; Wiley, 1998, 2004, of the federal government, whereas others not 2014a). specified are ‘reserved’ to the states. Matters re- Thelegaltensionsbetweenthoseattemptingto lating to educational polices tend to fall under restrict instruction in foreign language education reticent powers, unless they conflict with fed- cametoaheadinalandmarkU.S.SupremeCourt eral laws or constitutional protections. Constitu- ruling, Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923). tionally, federal authority trumps state authority, Based on the argument that a 1919 Nebraska which has been demonstrated in cases involving law restricting foreign language instruction in educational access and the requirement for lin- public schools violated the due process rights of guistic accommodation (see the following discus- parents guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, in sion on Lau v. Nichols). More recently, however, a 7–2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled against the U.S. Supreme Court has deferred to the au- Nebraska’s restrictive policy. Several years later, thority of states in determining the specificna- in Farrington v. Tokushige, 273 U.S. 284 (1927), ture of educational language policy accommoda- theSupremeCourtunanimouslyruledinfavorof tions for language minority students (see Moore, the rights of parents in what was then known as 2014). the Territory of Hawai‘i to instruct their chil- Again, among the most salient points to take dreninforeignlanguagesthroughprivatemeans. away from reflecting on U.S. history is that the These two cases are significant in providing a country has always been linguistically diverse. legal basis for the rights of parents to have Fromcolonialtimesthroughthe19thcentury,for their students learn foreign or heritage lan- example,therewasgeneraltolerancetowardmost guages. They fall basically within the domain of Europeanlanguages.EnslavedAfricans,however, tolerance-orientedpoliciesbutdonotcommitthe werenotallowedtospeakortransmittheirnative state to promote these languages (Wiley, 1998). languages even as they were restricted from be- Despite the protections denoted by Meyer and comingliterate in English. Colonial era ‘compul- Farrington,theideologyofEnglishOnlyeduca- sory ignorance laws’ were incorporated into slave tion as a principal tool of Americanization has codes that were maintained in southern states had considerable influence on shaping school until the end of the Civil War (1861–1865). Na- language policies, both in terms of the use of im- tive language literacy was promoted in some Na- migrant languages in schools and the emphases tive American tribes until repressive policies were placed on foreign language education. Instruc- putinplacealongwiththeEnglish-onlyboarding tion in Germanasthemostcommonlytaughtfor- school movement that was instituted in the 1880s eign language in U.S. secondary schools plum- (Weinberg, 1995). meted following World War I, never returning to Instruction in some immigrant languages, par- its former status. ticularly in German,wasestablishedearlyonfrom A half century later, the U.S. Supreme Court the late 17th century. German–English bilingual passed another landmark case, Lau v. Nichols, education was widely practiced in many areas of 414 U.S. 563 (1974). Lau is sometimes pre- thecountryuntiltheWorldWarIera,whenawave sumed to have sanctioned the use of bilingual of wartime xenophobia swept the country, result- education, but it merely established the right of inginwidespreadrestrictionsagainsttheteaching non-English-speaking children to receive accom- of foreign languages (Blanton, 2004; Toth, 1990; modations in learning English given its role as Wiley, 1998). By 1919, some 34 states had passed the mediumofinstruction. Lau did not prescribe restrictionsontheteachingof‘foreign’languages bilingual education or a method of accommo- suchasGerman,despitethewidespreadpresence dation (Arias & Wiley, 2013). Nevertheless, from of Germanandotherimmigrantlanguagesinthe the 1970s into the 1990s, a majority of states general population. The Americanization Move- implemented some form of bilingual education
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.