Language Problems and Language Planning - Volume 38, Issue 2, 2014

This is the second of a two-part article which examines the implications of the changing relationship between those who exercise political and State power in Ireland and those who adhere to the minority Irish language culture. Building on the analysis in the first article (Ó Giollagáin, 2014) in relation to the evolution of language policy in the Irish State since independence in 1922, this paper offers an analysis of current language policy reform. The analysis here contends that the aim of the current language policy reform process is to give a superficial aura of renewal, while at the same time enshrining the marginalization of the Irish language reducing it to an institution-based identity rather than a sociocultural phenomenon. Rather than intervening proactively against the imminent social collapse of Irish, the Irish State, through the mechanisms of the 20 Year Strategy for Irish and the amended Gaeltacht Act 2012, is instead adopting a palliative care approach to the sociocultural demise of Irish. The first paper contended that the Irish State effectively abandoned the language revival in the early 1970s and this paper asserts that the current reform process marks a completion of the abandonment process by which the Irish State is divesting itself of practical responsibility for the remaining Irish-language (Gaelic) autochthony in the Gaeltacht in favor of a visionless and institutionally-circumscribed L2 language culture for Irish. The Irish state is now effectively consigning the living culture of Irish to history, while at the same time attempting to disguise this significant shift in policy by subcontracting its new policy of encouraging L2 language networks to language agencies with inadequate institutional capacities and resources for the task.

This paper develops Tove Skutnabb-Kangas’ concept of linguicism by distinguishing an effectuative stage and a reproductive stage of linguistic inequality. The effectuative stage is described by inference and compared with Robert Phillipson’s theory of linguistic imperialism, and it is suggested that both frameworks are still missing empirical validation for the claim that language inequality may create other forms of inequality, and that such validation should come from historical data. To demonstrate this, language policies in the Kingdom of Hawai‘i during the 19th century are examined, with emphasis on the interpretation of bilingual statutory law, along with a number of judicial rulings. These are then related to changes in the economic sphere and the interaction is demonstrated in the curtailing of customary land use rights. The new concept of non-discriminatory linguicism is introduced to describe the presence of linguicist ideologies without concomitant discriminatory practices as a key feature of the effectuative stage of linguicism, and a new definition of linguicism is proposed.

Este análisis se centra en los procesos de construcción de las fronteras etnolingüísticas de los dos estados-nación que comparten la isla de La Española. En el contexto del siglo XX, los políticos y los filólogos dominicanos unieron sus esfuerzos para crear una tupida red de escuelas que tenían el español como idioma de instrucción, prohibir el uso del creole, cambiar el nombre francés o creole de numerosos lugares por otro nombre en español, y producir un corpus de textos que describieran y representaran el adecuado panorama lingüístico dominicano. Las prácticas de alfabetización y las prácticas discursivas estaban empeñadas en el propósito de hispanizar las comunidades fronterizas. Mi acercamiento a la transformación sociopolítica de esta región cursa a través del análisis de las representaciones de las prácticas del discurso y las correspondientes políticas lingüísticas del Estado dominicano hacia las comunidades bilingües y multiculturales en los años treinta y cuarenta del pasado siglo. En el examen de estos problemas interrelacionados, aplico las herramientas analíticas provenientes de la investigación sobre el discurso lingüístico y las ideologías del lenguaje (Arnoux y Del Valle, 2010; Irvine y Gal, 2000; Woolard, 2008) y las perspectivas de los estudios de frontera (Wilson y Donnan, 2012; Houtum y Naerssen, 2002). Mi pregunta básica es si, en el caso de la frontera dominicano-haitiana en el siglo XX, la diferencia lingüística se representó en el discurso metalingüístico con el doble propósito de crear una identidad dominico-hispánica y avasallar las identidades dominico-haitianas que arraigaban en aquel entonces.

Scotland is a small country yet it has a rich and complex linguistic makeup. The aim of this article is to analyse the current picture of the role of language education policy (LEP) in supporting and developing Scotland’s diverse languages drawing on policy documents, policy discourses and school pedagogies. The article begins with a historical account of multilingual Scotland in order to contextualize LEP and to dispel the myth of a monolingual country. This is followed by an examination of the three main language perspectives currently influencing LEP: regional languages, modern foreign languages and the languages of migrant communities. It will be illustrated that a post-devolutionary arena has provided opportunities for formulating and debating LEP which reflect a multilingual society, but significant imbalances and questions of equity still remain between the different categories of languages in terms of ideology, provision and practice. Finally, Lo Bianco’s (2007) taxonomy of language planning and action is modified to gain insights into the tensions and challenges that exist around a cohesive approach to LEP development in Scotland.

While macro-level language policy and planning (LPP) that is done mainly by governments still dominates thinking in the field, limitations of this focus have been demonstrated by recent broader and more focused conceptualizations of LPP. For instance, global LPP, particularly for languages of wider communication such as English, has received considerable attention. Similarly, studies of meso- and micro-level planning has shown that many LPP decisions have to be taken at sub-national institutional, communal and familial levels, particularly in contexts where macro-level policies do not exist, where non-interventionist policies of benign neglect are deemed appropriate from a political point of view, or where a problem is too small to attract national attention. These recent developments have led to additions to the macro-level LPP framework, providing more appropriate and contextually relevant tools to understand LPP efforts carried out by LPP “actors” both within and beyond individual polities. However, this diversification of LPP frames and contexts can also be seen as going through a process of simultaneous unification and taking a macro-like character, as illustrated by the distinctions being drawn between the public and the private sector LPP. Taking Bangladesh as a case and drawing on LPP issues pertaining to public and private universities as well as pre-tertiary educational institutions with a particular focus on medium of instruction and the private tutoring industry, we argue for the relevance of this macro-like distinction for a better understanding of complex LPP issues in the country. We maintain that the public-private domain distinction may complement existing variables by adding a dimension that is increasingly becoming important in a globalized world dominated by neoliberalism.