Online Education Blog

Who: the activities of LP can be undertaken by government, government-authorized agencies, non-government bodies, academies, and even individuals(e.g.Ben yehuda in Palestine, Samuel Johnson in England, Noah Webster in the united states, aasen in Norway, korais in Greece, Aavik in Estonia, Arzoo, Hatim, Wali and Insha in case of Urdu, and Raghunath Murmu in case of santali,etc.)

Jernudd (1973) has short listed the following language planning agents, in additional to government and individuals as literatures:

(a)    national, but non-governmental agencies, e.g. Singapore chamber of commerce, which constructed and issued language examinations and a style manual for business correspondence in malay;

(b)   non-national and non-governmental agencies,i.e. the shall company provides its own Malay oil Terminology in Malaysia and influences language developments in its personnel and training policies;

(c)    A newspaper’s proof reading function.

What:

The language planners may focus their attention on corpus, status or the crucial relationship of values,i.e, prestige associated with corpus and status planning activities. If the planning activities. If the object of language policy making is language teaching, then the focus of language planning may be on acquisition.

For whom:

Language planning is carried out for larger aggregates at the society or state level (or even cutting across national boundaries), for smaller aggregates, ethnic group, religious group, occupational group, etc. cooper looks at the target group of language planning as communication networks. According to him, communication network is “a set of verbal interaction links among persons, each network set off from others by sparsely of interaction”(1989:38-39). This is diagrammatically represented as:

There are two communication networks. Cooper outlines several advantages of viewing EP target population as a communication network. It does not restrict the analysis to micro or macro level, it intakes the study of LP “Consistent with the study of language spread” and it also enables us “to trace the diffusion of innovation or the resistance to innovation with which language planning is concerned”

How:

This question is connected with the planning and implementations stages of a larger planning process. Robin (1971) identifies four steps of this larger process, three of which relate to developing and implementing the plan while the fourth one relates to evaluation.

1. Fact-finding:  a substantial amount of background information should be available before any planning decisions are made.
2. Planning: formulating goals, the means to achieve them, and the expected outcomes.
3. Implementation: putting the plan into action.
4. Feedback: at this step, the planner finds out how well the plan has worked.

The communicative problem may reside at an individual level or at a group level. When the problem confronts a group and when the group or its representative attempts to solve it, then it is referred to as language treatment. According to Neustupny: the term language treatment has been coined to refer broadly to all organized forms of societal attention to language problem, both in the past and at present”. He considers language planning as a subset of language treatment, which in turn, is a subset of language correction. Thus for him language correction becomes the widest frame of reference.

Communication problems have also been looked at from the perspective which arises out of theory language problems (Neustupny 1968, 1b 78:243-257; Jernudd and Das Gupta 1971:205-206). A theory of language problems is explicit about relationships between discourse and peoples behaviour towards discourse, and can therefore “serve as the basis for theory of language management and language planning….participants in processes of language system, are inadequate. Arise out of linguistic interest or out of non linguistic interest”. Here the linguistic interest is a direct part of the communication process while the non linguistic interests “must be introduced into discourse in order to become problems of language. They are then perceived as inadequacies and corrected through the normal management process” (Jemudd and Neustupyn 1986.6). The discourse based approach has been referred to as (the study of) language management, and language planning has been modeled as a type of language management.

The model for language management in discourse holds that “a person:

1. Produces messages.
2. monitors the language that constitutes these messages, and notes a difference from norm;
3. evaluate(or not) the kind and degree of deviation from norm;
4. Select (or not) an adjustment strategy or at least adhoc means of adjustment for the inadequacy; such adjustment can be pre-j in or post-correction of self or of other participants’ language.
5. “acts(or not) to implement the selected adjustment”