Using language to help people, or using people to help language? A New Speakers typology of language...

of 27

Using language to help people, or using people to help language?A New Speakers typology of language acquisition planning

Dr. Dave SayersSenior Lecturer, Sheffield Hallam University

Honorary Research Associate, Cardiff University

Dr. Dave Sayers, Sheffield Hallam University & Cardiff UniversityA New Speakers Typology of Language Acquisition Planning

of 27

Overview• Compare whether (and how much) different LPP efforts aim to recruit new speakers.

• Also compare the normative goal to increase human wellbeing

• See how these two co‐vary


of 27

New speakers• Recruitment growing as a function of language policy & planning.• LPP efforts like Welsh and Catalan have been discussed as “home

language” or “mother tongue” programmes (Wee 2010: 84), but much more is involved.

• These examples, and many others, are heavily concerned with second language learners, children and adults, regardless of ethnicity or nationality, and often in areas where native speakers are few (see e.g. Coupland et al. 2006:352; Boix‐Fuster & Sanz 2008).

• Difficult to maintain that “a language right is typically oriented toward the protection of an inherited ethnic identity” (Wee 2010: 145).

• Boix‐Fuster, Emili and Cristina Sanz. 2008. Language and identity in Catalonia. In M. Nino‐Murcia & J. Rothman (eds.), Bilingualism and identity: Spanish at the crossroads with other languages. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 87–106.

• Coupland, N. & H. Bishop. 2006. Ideologies of language and community in post‐devolution Wales. In J. Wilson & K. Stapleton (eds.), Devolution and Identity. Aldershot: Ashgate. 33–50.

• Wee, Lionel (2010). Language without rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


of 27

Human rights in terms of “capabilities”

• The ability to materially alter your life conditions, and pursue your objectives (see e.g. Sen 2004)

• Also useful, the idea of “freedom restricting conditions” (Vizard 2006), which may inhibit capabilities

• Sen, Amartya. 2004. Rationality and Freedom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

• Vizard, Polly. 2006. Poverty and Human Rights: Sen’s ‘Capability Perspective’ Explored. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


of 27

Relevant existing debate– “a frequent critique of language endangerment discourse is that it

displaces concerns with speakers on to a concern with languages” (Heller & Duchêne, 2007: 4,7)

– “The planning efforts to re‐establish an imaginary linguistic ecology proposed by western researchers can very easily give rise to new injustices” (Kibbee, 2003: 53–54)

– “positive language rights are de facto group rights, even if they are presented de jure as individual rights. […] When this happens, it is difficult for an individual to opt out” (Wright, 2007: 204)

• Heller, M. & A. Duchêne. 2007. Discourses of endangerment: sociolinguistics, globalization and social order. In A. Duchêne & M. Heller (eds.), Discourses of endangerment: Ideology and Interest in the Defence of Languages, London: Continuum. 1–13.

• Kibbee, D.A. (2003). Language policy and linguistic theory. In J. Maurais & M.A. Morris (eds.), Languages in a Globalising World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 47–57.

• Wright, S. (2007). The Right to Speak One’s Own Language: Reflections on Theory and Practice. Language Policy, 6(2): 203‐224.


of 27

• J. Edwards (2006) and Barry (2000:105) claim that exclusive use of minority languages can prevents access to the modern world.

• May (2003), in a rebuttal, argues that minority languages can be included in the wider modernisation project.

• Some crossed purposes and incompatible assumptions; the debate lacks theoretical structure, or “ideological clarification” (Kroskrity, 2009).

• Barry, B. 2000. Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.• Edwards, J. 2010. Minority Languages and Group Identity: Cases and Categories. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.• Kroskrity, P.V. (2009). ‘Language Renewal as Sites of Language Ideological Struggle: The Need for “Ideological Clarification” ’. In J. Reyhner & L. Lockard (eds.), Indigenous Language Revitalization: Encouragement, Guidance & Lessons Learned, Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University (pp. 71‐83).

• May, Stephen. 2003. Rearticulating the Case for Minority Language Rights. Current Issues in Language Planning4(2): 95‐125.


Relevant existing debate

of 27

<–––––––––––––––––––––––––––-––––––––––––>


Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Type 5 Type 6Not about new speakers

All about new speakers

• The following six Types:

– are ideal types in the sociological sense, i.e. just used to illustrate concepts, and don’t exist in such pure form;

– …therefore do not describe whole language planning efforts, but goals within them at specific points in time

of 27

<–––––––––––––––––––––––––––-––––––––––––>




Type 1Majority language integration

fornon‐speakers of the majority language

of 27

– The most basic accommodation of a minority language, used in primary education, transitioning to majority language.• African American Vernacular English (AAVE) ‘dialect readers’ (Rickford 2002)• Some instances of Spanish‐English education in US (Crawford 2004: 312–335)• Saafi literacy programmes in some Senegalese communities, transitioning to

French (Trudell 2009: 78)

Inclusion of the minority language, but not aiming to protect it per se.“the academic disadvantages that children face when they are educated in an imposed language … – … arguably … the major force behind … education in vernacular languages” (Freeland & Patrick 2004: 1)

• Crawford, J. (2004). Educating English learners (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Bilingual Educational Services.• Rickford, John R. 2002. Linguistics, education, and the Ebonics firestorm. In J. E. Alatis et al. (eds.), Round table on

language and linguistics, 2000: Linguistics, language and the professions, Washington, D.C.: Georgetown UP. 25–45.• Trudell, Barbara. 2009. Local‐language literacy and sustainable development in Africa. International Journal of Educational

Development, 29: 73‐79.


Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Type 5 Type 6Not about new speakers <–––––––––––––––––––––––––––-––––––––––––> All about new speakers

Majority language integration for non‐speakers of the majority language

of 27

Labov’s (2008) poignant essay Unendangered Dialects, Endangered People (in a volume otherwise discussing endangered languages) notes that poverty and exclusion of AAVE speakers may strengthen their linguistic peculiarities, but at the expense of their freedoms and capabilities.“The topic […] is a difficult one, especially in a forum devoted

to […] endangered languages and […] dialects” (p.219).This articulates the difficult balance between prioritising human wellbeing and promoting a minority language.• Labov, William. 2008. Unendangered Dialects, Endangered People. In K.A. King et al. (eds.), Sustaining Linguistic Diversity: Endangered and Minority Languages and Language Varieties. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown UP. 219–238.




of 27

• Type 1 can involve positive overtones about the minority language, resonating with “additive, not subtractive” bilingual education (e.g. Skutnabb‐Kangas 2002).

• But the focus is capabilities, not the language as such.

• In the AAVE / Ebonics case:“The single guiding goal is to guarantee that conditions exist for all

students to achieve academic success.”Superintendent of the Oakland Unified School District

U.S. Senate testimony (cited in Zéphir, 1999:144)• Skutnabb‐Kangas, Tove. 2002. Marvelous Human Rights Rhetoric and Grim Realities: Language Rights in Education.

Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 1(3): 179–205.• Zéphir, F. 1999. Challenges for Multicultural Education: Sociolinguistic Parallels Between African American English

and Haitian Creole. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 20(2): 134–154.




of 27

Type 2Minority language maintenance

fornon‐speakers of the majority language

<–––––––––––––––––––––––––––-––––––––––––>




of 27

Minority language maintenance for non‐speakers of the majority language

– A minority language community uses the minority language for development, bypassing the majority language

– “local literacy” (Street 1984; see also Agnihotri 1997)• Some uses of Quechua in S. America, bypassing Spanish (Hornberger & King 1996)• Some uses of Gujarati in Gujarat, bypassing English (Ramanathan 2005)• English in England in the 17th century, bypassing Latin (C. Jones 2006:8)

• Not necessarily aiming for new speakers of the minority language; just disinterested in the majority language, whose usefulness is in question.

• Agnihotri, R.K. 1997. Sustaining local literacies. In V. Edwards & D. Corson (eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education,Vol. 2: Literacy, Boston: Kluwer. 173–179.

• Hornberger, Nancy H. & Kendall A. King. 1996. Language revitalization in the Andes: Can the schools reverse language shift? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 17(6): 427–441.

• Jones, C. 2006. English Pronunciation in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries. Basingstoke: Palgrave.• Ramanathan, V. 2005. Rethinking Language Planning and Policy from the Ground Up: Refashioning Institutional Realities

and Human Lives. Current Issues in Language Planning 6(2): 89‐101.• Street, B.V. (1984). Literacy in theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.



of 27

• The primary focus is still capabilities, not the language.

• “Gujarati, the way I see it, empowers … English does not do that here” (Ramanathan 2005:97)

• “Young people from several minority communities […] attend the local language literacy classes […] hop[ing] to become literate in their own language, [to] increase their chances of integrating into the national economic and social sphere.” (Trudell 2009:77)

• Ramanathan, V. 2005. Rethinking Language Planning and Policy from the Ground Up: Refashioning Institutional Realities and Human Lives. Current Issues in Language Planning 6(2): 89‐101.

• Trudell, Barbara. 2009. Local‐language literacy and sustainable development in Africa. International Journal of Educational Development 29: 73‐79.


Minority language maintenance for non‐speakers of the majority language


of 27

Type 3Minority language maintenance

forminority‐majority language bilinguals

<–––––––––––––––––––––––––––-––––––––––––>




of 27

Minority language maintenance for minority‐majority language bilinguals

– If a person is fully minority‐majority bilingual, their capabilities are not increased or decreased by promoting the minority lang.

– It might contribute to their sense of identity, but that is separate from capabilities, from material wellbeing (De Schutter 2007)• Catalan within bilingual parts of Catalonia (Atkinson 2000)• Welsh within bilingual parts of Wales (e.g. Martin‐Jones et al. 2009)• Note this does NOT apply to the whole of Catalonia or Wales, or even whole communities within them; only to people who are fully bilingual. Remember this typology is about normative orientations, not characterising

whole language planning efforts.

•Atkinson, D. 2000. Minoritisation, Identity and Ethnolinguistic Vitality in Catalonia. JMMD 21(3): 185‐197.•De Schutter, H. 2007. Language policy and political philosophy: On the emerging linguistic justice debate. LPLP 31: 1‐23.•Martin‐Jones, M. et al. 2009. Bilingual literacy in and for working lives on the land: case studies of young Welsh speakers in North Wales. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 195: 39–62.



of 27

• Normative orientation starts to move away from capabilities

• Extant bilingualism means that ‘freedom‐restricting conditions’ (obstacles to services, justice etc.) are not lifted by promoting the minority language.

• Instead, there arises an interest in e.g.– “the right of the individual to use the language of their choice” (Welsh Assembly Government, 2003:37);

– the role of language as part of identity (e.g. Nic Craith, 1999:498)• Nic Craith, M. (1999). Irish Speakers in Northern Ireland, and the Good Friday Agreement. Journal of

Multilingual and Multicultural Development 20(6): 494–506.• Welsh Assembly Government. 2003. Iaith Pawb: A National Action Plan for a Bilingual Wales. Cardiff:

National Assembly for Wales.


Minority language maintenance for minority‐majority language bilingualsType 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Type 5 Type 6

Not about new speakers <–––––––––––––––––––––––––––-––––––––––––> All about new speakers

of 27

Type 4Promotion of intergenerational transmission

amongminority language semi‐speakers

<–––––––––––––––––––––––––––-––––––––––––>




of 27

• In contexts where everybody speaks the majority language, and most do not know the minority languageo Maori ‘language nests’, facilitating transmission by remaining elderly

speakers (Spolsky, 2003)o the initial stages of the ‘Twf’ (‘growth’) project in Wales, encouraging

parents towards teaching their children Welsh (Edwards & Newcombe, 2005)

• Fewer explicit claims about capability‐type benefits in relation to this specific language (may focus on generic benefits of bilingualism in any two languages)

• Increasing focus on heritage/identity• Edwards, V. & L.P. Newcombe. 2005. Language transmission in the family in Wales: An example of innovative language

planning. Language Problems & Language Planning 29(2): 135–150.• Spolsky, Bernard. 2003. Reassessing Māori regeneration. Language in Society 32(4): 553–578.




of 27

Twf’s ‘8 good reasons to introduce Welsh from birth’

“Did you know that introducing your baby to Welsh right from the start…1. Lays firm foundations for your child to become bilingual2. Gives your child a head start when learning to read and count3. Enriches the child’s Welsh identity4. Extends their social activities and friendship groups5. Gives them a better chance of gaining employment when older6. Improves communication skills and makes it easier to learn other

languages7. Increases their appreciation of Wales’ languages and cultures.8. Increases their appreciationof other cultures and languages”http://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/Documents/Living/Social%20Care/Care/Childrens%20Information%20Service/For%20Parents%20&%20Carers/Welsh/

TWF%208%20Good%20Reasons%20To%20Introduce%20Welsh%20From%20Birth%20Leaflet.pdf




of 27

Type 5Minority language integration

fornon‐speakers of the minority language

<–––––––––––––––––––––––––––-––––––––––––>




of 27

• Few minority language speakers remain (none monolingual).• The aim is to create more speakers for them to talk to.• Examples: the remaining areas with bilingual speakers in…

o Scotland (Judge, 2007: 188)o the Basque Country (Conversi 1990: 58)o New Zealand (Spolsky 2003:560)

• Emphasis education, ‘proficiency’, ‘competence’ (Grin 2003: 172)• May extend beyond the ethnolinguistic ‘group’• Focused on identity/heritage, further still from capabilities• Conversi, D. 1990. Language or race?: The choice of core values in the development of Catalan and Basque nationalisms.

Ethnic & Racial Studies 13(1): 50‐70.• Grin, Francois. 2003. Language Policy Evaluation and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. New

York: Palgrave Macmillan.• Judge, Anne. 2007. Linguistic Policies and the Survival of Regional Languages in France and Britain. New York: Palgrave

Macmillan.• Spolsky, Bernard. 2003. Reassessing Māori regeneration. Language in Society 32(4): 553–578.


Minority language integration for non‐speakers of the minority languageType 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Type 5 Type 6


of 27

Type 6Extension or creation of a minority language group

<–––––––––––––––––––––––––––-––––––––––––>




of 27

• Reviving a dead language or a living language in areas with no speakers• Logically this cannot relate to capabilities, if there are no speakers

All of…• the initial spread of Hebrew across Palestine (latterly Israel) in late 19th century (Spolsky 2009)• Cornish in Cornwall (Sayers & Renkó‐Michelsén 2015)

Parts of…• Breton in Brittany (Hornsby 2008: 131)• Basque in the Basque Country (Mateo, 2005: 10)• Welsh in Wales (Coupland & Aldridge, 2009: 6)• Quechua in Paraguay (Hornberger, 1997: 223)

•Coupland, N. & M. Aldridge. 2009. Introduction: a critical approach to the revitalisation of Welsh. IJSL 195: 5‐13.•Hornberger, N.H. 1997. Quechua literacy and empowerment in Peru. In N.H. Hornberger (ed.), Indigenous literacies in the Americas: Language planning from the bottom up, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 215–236.•Hornsby, M. 2008. The Incongruence of the Breton Linguistic Landscape for Young Speakers of Breton. JMMD 29: 127–138.•Mateo, M. 2005. Language policy and planning of the status of Basque I: the Basque Autonomous Community. IJSL 174: 9‐23.•Sayers, Dave & Zsuzsanna Renkó‐Michelsén. 2015. The Cornish language in relation to Einar Haugen’s four‐step model of language standardisation. Sociolinguistica: The Yearbook of European Sociolinguistics vol. 29.•Spolsky, B. 2009. School Alone Cannot Do It, But It Helps: Irish, Hebrew, Navajo and Māori Language Revival Efforts. Institute of Advanced Studies seminar, University of Bristol, 4 March.


Extension or creation of a minority language groupType 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Type 5 Type 6


of 27

• Any capabilities infringed upon will bring it ‘into the red’ in terms of rights and freedoms.

• In Québec, LPP efforts to extend the Francophone group have motivated legal challenges from immigrant families whose children are denied education in English (Canada East 2009).

• Similar tensions are reported in Catalonia by Atkinson (2000: 190) and Hoffman (2000).

• Pressure on capabilities is recognised by individuals, and challenged accordingly, but the priority of the language is reasserted by the state.

• Atkinson, D. 2000. Minoritisation, Identity and Ethnolinguistic Vitality in Catalonia. JMMD 21(3): 185–197.• Canada East. 2009. Top court strikes down Que. language law for schools; province vows to replace it. www.canadaeast.com/news/article/832496

• Hoffmann, C. 2000. Balancing Language Planning and Language Rights: Catalonia’s Uneasy Juggling Act. JMMD 21(5): 425‐41.


Extension or creation of a minority language groupType 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Type 5 Type 6


of 27

<–––––––––––––––––––––––––––-––––––––––––>




• The typology provides greater theoretical structure for ongoing debate, e.g.

“If you make ethnicity, nationality, and minority status the unit of analysis, you can conclude that people […] have in their interest to maintain their mother tongue. If, on the contrary, you take class as the unit of analysis, their interests might dictate emphasis on access to “dominant languages”.” (Brutt‐Griffler 2002:225)

• Brutt‐Griffler, Janina. 2002. Class, Ethnicity, and Language Rights: An Analysis of British Colonial Policy in Lesotho and Sri Lanka and Some Implications for Language Policy. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education 1(3): 207–234.

Conclusions

of 27 Dr. Dave Sayers, Sheffield Hallam University & Cardiff UniversityA New Speakers Typology of Language Acquisition Planning

[email protected]

Download this talk from:https://shu.academia.edu/DaveSayers/talks

Using language to help people, or using people to help language? A New Speakers typology of language...

Documents

Transcript of Using language to help people, or using people to help language? A New Speakers typology of language...