Visit www.benjamins.com

rss feed

Language Problems and Language Planning

image of Language Problems and Language Planning
ISSN 0272-2690
E-ISSN 1569-9889


Show / Hide descriptions

Latest content:

Article
content/journals/15699889
Journal
5
3
Loading

Most cited this month

  • Language Planning as a Discourse on Language and Society: The Linguistic Ideology of a Scholarly Tradition
    • Author: Jan Blommaert
    • Source: Language Problems and Language Planning, Volume 20, Issue 3, 1996, pages: 199 –222
    • + Show Description - Hide Description
    • SAMENVATTINGTaaiplanning als bezinning over taal en maatschappij:de taalkundige ideologie van een geleerde traditieTaalplanning is een traditie die vooral in de jaren 1960 en 1970 bijzonder productief was en in zich een groot optimisme ontwikkelde. De traditie viel wat stil in de jaren 1980, maar kent nu weer een heropbloei, o.m. omwille van de ontwikkelingen in Zuid-Afrika. In deze bijdrage wil ik een evaluatie van de voorbije traditie aansnijden, in het perspectief van de optimalisatie van het theoretisch, conceptueel en methodologisch kader van taalplanning-studies. Ik schets eerst kort de historische ontwikkeling van taalplanning, en ga vervolgens in op enkele ideologische aspecten die in veel traditioneel werk terug te vinden zijn. Ik bespreek achtereenvolgens de courante boutade dat taalplanning geen theoretische achtergrond zou hebben; de intuïtieve beperkingen die taaiplanners zich in hun studies leken op te leggen; de organische visies op taal en maatschappij ; het oligolingualisme en de assumpties van efficiëntie en integratie. Vervolgens vat ik de kritieken van Glyn Williams en Andrew Apter samen. Zij bepleiten een sterkere politieke invalshoek, die taal naast een reeks andere maatschappelijke kenmerken plaatst. Ik sluit af met een pleidooi voor een combinatie van een historiografische en een etnografische benadering in het bestuderen van language planning.RESUMOLingvoplanado kiel debato pri lingvo kaj socio:la lingvistika ideologio de sciencista tradicioLingvoplanado estas tradicio kiu estis tre fekunda cefe en la 1960-aj kaj 1970-aj jaroj kaj kovis en si grandan optimismon. Gi iom fadis en la 1980-aj jaroj, sed nun denove floras, i.a. pro la evoluoj en Suda Afriko. Mi ci tie ekanalizas la tradicion de la pasinteco cele al plibonigo de la teoria, koncepta kaj metodologia kadro de studoj pri lingvoplanado. Mi koncize skizas la historian evoluon de lingvoplanado, kaj poste tusas aron da ideologiaj aspektoj kiujn oni renkontas en multaj el la tradiciaj laboraĵoj. Mi diskutas la aserton ke lingvoplanado ne havus teorian fonon, la intuiciajn limigojn kiujn lingvoplanantoj sajnis starigi al siaj propraj studoj, la organajn konceptojn de lingvo kaj socio, plurlingvismon, kaj la premisojn de efikeco kaj integrado. Mi resumas la kritikojn de Glyn Williams kaj Andrew Apter, kiuj pledas por pli politika aliro en kiu lingvo estas unu el aro da sociaj faktoroj. Fine mi pledas por tio ke en la studado de lingvoplanado oni uzu kombinon el historiografia kaj etnografia aliroj.
  • “You see me no up”: Is Singlish a problem?
    • Author: Chng Huang Hoon
    • Source: Language Problems and Language Planning, Volume 27, Issue 1, 2003, pages: 45 –62
    • + Show Description - Hide Description
    • Singlish, Singapore’s brand of colloquial English, is accepted by some as an essential marker ofSingaporean identity but deplored by others as a variety of English that puts Singapore and Singaporeans at adisadvantage because of its lack of international intelligibility. For this reason, it has been argued thatSingaporeans cannot afford to maintain Singlish as a viable linguistic resource. A campaign known as the“Speak Good English Movement” was established in 2000 to counter the ill effects of Singlishthrough the promotion of Standard English. This paper addresses the Singlish-Standard (Singaporean) Englishdebate in terms of discourse resources and the politics of language planning in Singapore. It may be true thatSinglish is not the most internationally intelligible of Englishes, but what is more interesting is the considerabledisparity between the official concern over international intelligibility and the reality of life in Singapore,especially for the Singlish speaker. Such a disparity suggests differing notions of what constitutes an importantlinguistic resource for the nation as a whole and for specific speech communities. On another level, it providesinsights into the politics of language management in Singapore. The Singlish-Standard English debate alsoprovides clear evidence of struggles over the determination of the choice of a preferred variety of English andthe control over linguistic resources. Through an examination of media reports, official statements, and lettersto local newspapers, the author considers the implications of this debate for Singaporeans (especially Singlishspeakers) and their participation within the society. In the process, the author also examines the powerrelations that are intertwined in this debate for determining the ideal Singaporean society.
  • Multilingualism and Education Policy in Post-Apartheid South Africa
    • Author: Nkonko M. Kamwangamalu
    • Source: Language Problems and Language Planning, Volume 21, Issue 3, 1997, pages: 234 –253
    • + Show Description - Hide Description
    • MU CIKOSOMiakulu ne Politike wa Tulasa kunyima kwa apateide mu Afrike wa KwinshiAfrike wa Kwinshi pakadipikulaye ku bupika bwa apateide mu 1994, lukonko lunene luvwa pa moyo wa bamfumu ba ditunga luvwa lwa ne ncini civwabo ne bwa kwenza ne miakulu ya batoke bavwa bakwata ditunga ku bupika, Angele ne Afrikanse. Mu dibeji edi ndi ngakula bwa politike udi bamfumu ba ditunga benza bwa kwandamuna lukonko elu, ne nangananga politike wa kulongesha bana mu miakulu ya bankambwa. Ne ndeja ne bwa politike eu kupatula bipeta bimpe, bidi bikengela ne bamfumu ba ditunga bakudimuna cimfwani cibi civwa batoke bapeshe miakulu ya bankambwa mu matuku a bupika bwa apateide. Cianana baledi kabakwitaba bwa ne bana babo balongeshibwa mu miakulu eyi to. Ne ndeja mushindu udi bamfumu ba ditunga mwa kukudimuna cimfwani cibi cia miakulu eyi kabiyi bikengela kupepeja Angele ani Afrikanse.RESUMOMultlingvismo kaj eduka politiko en postapartisma SudafrikoKiam Sudafriko liberigis sin el rasapartismo en aprilo 1994, unu el la tuj frontendaj problemoj estis decidi la sorton de la du lingvoj, angla kaj afrikansa, kiujn ĝi heredis el antaŭaj registaroj -la koloniaj kaj la apartismaj. La nuna referaĵo rekte esploras la respondon de Sudafriko al tiu ĉi problemo, nome la lastatempe akceptitan politikon de dek unu oficialaj lingvoj. Ĝi aparte fokusigas je la nuna debato pri edukado en la gepatra lingvo kontraŭ edukado en fremda lingvo, la angla aŭ la afrikansa. La aŭtoro argumentas ke, por ke la nova eduka politiko atingu sian celon, nome la apogon de edukado en la gepatra lingvo, necesos forigi la hontosignojn ligitajn al edukado en la gepatra lingvo dum la epoko de apartismo. La aŭtoro donas sugestojn pri kiel atingi tion sen subfosi la rolon kaj gravecon de la angla kaj la afrikansa en la klopodoj de la lando konstrui novaj kaj li egalecan nacion.
  • English as an official language in South Korea: Global English or social malady?
    • Author: Jae Jung Song
    • Source: Language Problems and Language Planning, Volume 35, Issue 1, 2011, pages: 35 –55
    • + Show Description - Hide Description
    • In largely monolingual South Korea, English has become so important that it is promoted and regarded as a major criterion in education, employment and job-performance evaluation. Recently, South Koreans have also gone so far as to debate whether to adopt English as an official language of South Korea. This article examines the status and role of English in South Korea, particularly in the context of the Official English debate. In so doing, the article critically discusses previous ideologically-based accounts of English in South Korea. By demonstrating that these accounts do not go ideologically deep enough, the article argues that education, under cover of the ideology of merit, serves as a primary mechanism of elimination that conserves the hierarchy of power relations already established in South Korean society. English has been recruited, in the guise of globalization, to exploit the meretricious ideology of merit to the advantage of the privileged classes and to the disadvantage of the other classes of the society. English in South Korea cannot be understood fully unless it is recognized that its importance has not been as much engendered by globalization as it has been resorted to as a subterfuge to conceal where the responsibility for inequality in education lies within the society.
  • Language policy and political philosophy: On the emerging linguistic justice debate
    • Author: Helder De Schutter
    • Source: Language Problems and Language Planning, Volume 31, Issue 1, 2007, pages: 1 –23
    • + Show Description - Hide Description
    • This paper provides an overview of the emerging debates over language policy and linguistic diversity within political philosophy. It outlines the larger context of this debate and identifies its protagonists and the main issues at stake in it. In addition, it presents an interpretive scheme for the analysis of the variety of approaches that have so far been developed within this field. This scheme relates these approaches back to two clashes of different language ideologies. The first clash is between instrumentalism and constitutivism. The second clash is between transparency and hybridity. Finally, the paper explains why the sociolinguistic literature on language policy should interest political philosophers, and vice versa: why sociolinguists should engage with political philosophy.
More
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address