Sociolinguistics and Language Education.pdf

Language Policy and Planning 155
planners responding to Defense calls for action with calls for more research,
more exploration and more debate before formulating policy. Interpreting
this as stalling she declared: ‘We can do this NOW! We just say what languages
we need, get the money, train the teachers, and they do it. It isn’t
rocket science!’ (Lo Bianco, 2008a: 172).
Sources of LP Data and Moves Towards An Interactive,
Democratic Practice
LP might not be rocket science, but it is a complex and elusive activity.
We both change and confi rm language as we use it. The discussion below
proposes an interactive democratic LP based on dialogue accompanying
technical expertise, and explores the unique role of teaching, and teachers,
in LP.
We can compare two classic and popular defi nitions of LP to begin
exploration of new directions. These defi nitions are Cooper’s (1989: 45),
quoted above, ‘. . . deliberate efforts to infl uence the behavior of others
with respect to the acquisition, structure, or functional allocation of their
language codes’; and Fishman’s (1994: 92) ‘. . . authoritative allocation of
resources to language’. These defi nitions capture features of past
approaches to LP refl ecting code-focus and expert-centred activity.
In Cooper’s defi nition, the key idea is conscious infl uence brought to
bear on the linguistic behaviour of others in three domains: learning, linguistic
structure and functional use of languages. In this uni-directional
approach through research, knowledge infl uence is exercised on the
languages of other people. Fishman’s defi nition identifi es the role of
authorities and resources and ties LP to offi cial decision making and
power. Both imply division between experts who gather knowledge,
authorities who make decisions, and language users, teachers, or societies
who take direction.
Both defi nitions have the advantage of clarity and accurately depict a
dominant academic view of what counts as LP and a component of the
practice of LP. However, they unduly limit the scope of LP activity as it is,
and more importantly what it could be; restricting the participants to nonelected
experts recommending courses of action to non-expert offi cials.
While allowing that offi cials change or reject recommendations, possibly
infl uenced by their constituents, the models imply that this is rare. There
are both obvious and obscure problems with such assumptions, because
when we look very closely at how language change actually happens, we
can see that even quite routine and ordinary social processes shape how
language works, how it is used and how aspects of language are changed.
Overly formal and deliberate requirements obscure the micro-dynamics
of language change. Another unfortunate result of these defi nitions is that
teachers and teaching are construed as mere implementers of plans and