Language Planning in School-based Language Revival Programs

Philippa Dundon[1] Senior Curriculum Officer, Aboriginal Languages,
Board of Studies NSW

Introduction

This paper examines the role of language planning within school-based language revival programs, particularly focusing on Indigenous[2] language revival programs within Australia. It provides an overview of language planning concepts and definitions, and examines language planning as it relates to language revival programs in general, and to school-based language programs in particular. The term ‘language revival’ is used here as a cover term for related types of language revitalisation, renewal and reclamation projects and programs that are being developed all around Australia (Amery 2000,
pp 17–18; SA DETE 1999, p 19; Board of Studies 2003). The paper concludes by examining the language planning and policy background in Australia, and how this environment influences the policy and funding issues that affect school-based language revival programs.

Language planning

In a multilingual society decisions need to be made about the functions and roles that different languages will play in that society. This is a type of language planning that includes making decisions about the national and/or official language(s), the language(s) of education and government, the role of community languages especially, the place and role of Indigenous languages. Language planning may also take place as part of language revival efforts, as communities try to reverse language loss. Language planning in this case is a form of social planning that takes place in response to a social issue or need (Eastman 1983, p 36).

What is language planning?

Language planning is a broad field of study that, in response to a perceived language problem or issue, enables practitioners to examine the possible options that speakers may have available to them and recommend a range of potential actions (Eastman 1983, p 2). All languages are constantly facing changes of one kind or another. This is a natural phenomenon and languages that fail to adapt to the changing circumstances of their speakers may become restricted in their use, leading to a decline in the domains in which they are spoken. Language survival depends on having a variety of functions for the language to fulfil. This means that, consciously or not, speakers are constantly being presented with alternatives and having to make choices, either between language varieties or within a language. Language planning, then, can be seen as a conscious or ‘explicit choice among alternatives’ (Fasold 1984, p 246).

Hornberger (1997, p 7, in Hinton 2001b, pp 52–53) discusses language planning in terms of two approaches and four types of planning. The approaches include, firstly, ‘cultivation planning’, which deals with how the language itself might be maintained or revived, including, for example, within a school-based language revival program. The second approach discussed is ‘policy planning’, which considers the implementation of decisions about the function(s) and role(s) of languages within either a particular society or country, such as Australia, or context, such as within the education system. The four types of planning include status planning, acquisition planning, corpus planning and writing.[3]

‘Status planning’ involves choices that are made with regard to the function of a language or dialect (Cooper 1989, p 32). This includes deliberate choices that are made and agreed upon within a community about, for example, which language will be used in a particular situation or domain. That is, status planning addresses how languages function in multilingual societies, including as an/the official national language, a community language, a language of education (as the medium of instruction) or as a school subject language, which is taught as a second language. Language is a very important and powerful means by which people identify themselves and others, and as such is often used to make a political point of difference and prior ownership as found in cases as diverse as Celtic in Ireland and ari in Aotearoa. Status planning, then, is often highly political (Cooper 1989, p 32). Status planning may take place at either a community level or, more formally, at a governmental level.

‘Acquisition planning’ refers to members of the community actively planning language revival programs to maintain or reclaim a language. In general terms, this is where decisions about the types of programs suitable for teaching the language to the community will be determined, such as whether it is possible to implement a school-based language revival program (Cooper 1989, p 32). Such programs will need to be tailored to the unique and individual needs of each language situation, as well as to the linguistic backgrounds of the students (Ministry of Education Western Australia 1992,
p 10). There are four main school-based language program types that have been identified by the South Australian Department of Education, Training and Employment (SA DETE 1999, pp 19–20), and that are often referred to by practitioners. These include the following:

  • first language maintenance and development, in which a fully spoken Indigenous language is the students’ first language
  • second language learning, in which students learn an Indigenous language (which may or may not be their language of heritage) as a second language
  • language revival, including: language revitalisation, which describes a situation in which older people in the community still speak the language, but it is not being passed on the younger generation; language renewal, in which the language is not spoken fluently but much language knowledge remains in the community; and language reclamation, where the language is not spoken in the community, but much knowledge is available from historical texts
  • language awareness, in which there is not enough oral or written language knowledge to enable the teaching of the language for communication purposes.

‘Corpus planning’ occurs when planning involves a change within the body of the language. For example, this may mean the standardisation of a language, including its pronunciation and spelling. This aspect of corpus planning is linked closely to status planning because the standardisation of one dialect over another has obvious implications for the status of both dialects. Corpus planning may also involve language adaptation and, in some cases, ‘modernisation’ of vocabulary and grammatical rules to allow the language to express new communicative functions, new technologies and, often, new political goals (Cooper 1989, p 32). An example of the development of ways to express new technologies includes the creation of a new word for ‘computer’ in Indigenous languages such as the Gamilaraay/Yuwaalaraay/Yuwaalayaay languages. This and other such developments have been repeated in a number of Indigenous languages around the country.

Why is language planning important?

Language planning has important sociocultural and practical implications. On a sociocultural level, the linguistic change that leads to language endangerment and loss is very often closely linked to social change and colonisation (Mercurio and Amery 1996, p 26). Providing a positive focus on the language can help reverse some of the adverse effects of colonisation, assisting the minority language to gain prestige, and the speakers to regain pride in their language. It can also be a vehicle for transmitting Indigenous history and cultural heritage to both the Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities, promoting cross-cultural communication and understanding. The production of materials written in language allows those in the community to study, learn and teach the language. This in turn opens up a new cultural function for the Indigenous language, making it more accessible to the community. Finally, the cultural benefits of such a ‘spiritual revival’ of language may also lead to economic benefits in that native speakers and Indigenous community members may then have the opportunity to work as teachers of the language (Dorian 1987, p 34). These issues are particularly relevant in a country such as Australia, which, according to Mercurio and Amery (1996):

has one of the worst records in relation to the survival of Indigenous languages. Only about 20 of the original 250–270 languages are considered to be in a relatively healthy state. All Australian languages are threatened. (p 26)

On a practical and linguistic level, language planning is essential when it comes to strategic language rebuilding and developing language revival programs, allowing communities to thoroughly research the language in terms of resources and materials as well as level of support within the community. It also enables communities to make informed decisions on the best options that are available to them in terms of likely programs and available funding, and to set some realistic and informed long- and short-term goals for the language revival program.

Who is involved in language planning?

Language planning occurs at many different levels in society, including at societal and governmental levels, within education systems and specific groups and even between individuals within a community. Furthermore, every society has a language policy of sorts, ‘although many policies exist implicitly and in the absence of planning’ (Eastman 1983, p 6).

Language planning, particularly status planning, is not restricted to the fields of linguistics or socio-linguistics, although both of these disciplines obviously play a crucial role in status, acquisition and corpus planning. Involvement in status planning activities is likewise not restricted to particular official bodies or groups of people and communities, and it can be carried out by almost anyone. Governments, however, with their access to both resources and policy-making and legislative functions are in a position to make ‘the most wide-ranging (but not necessarily the most successful) decisions that influence language’ (Fasold 1984, p 251). Those involved in language planning outside of government, including educational bodies and agencies, non-government organisations, community groups and linguists, usually do not have the same influence and resources at their disposal. These groups are thus forced to use other means, such as political lobbying, to put pressure on government to support their language planning activities and policy recommendations (Fasold 1984, p 253). There is an advocacy role, therefore, for organisations such as these, including, for example, the Federation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Languages (FATSIL), which is the national body for community-based Indigenous language programs in Australia.

Acquisition and corpus planning, on the other hand, require much more in the way of technical expertise, and as such the field of participants is somewhat more limited. Linguists play a large role in corpus planning, as they work with communities to analyse and describe languages, to develop orthographies, dictionaries and grammars, and to assist communities in the development of writing systems and the adaptation of language to incorporate new expressions. Corpus planning, therefore, for the most part involves speech communities and linguists. As well as these groups, acquisition planning has another dimension in that other bodies, such as educational organisations, can also influence and play a part in making decisions about the teaching of languages and the need for the standardisation of a language. Those involved in acquisition and corpus planning are also involved, whether directly or indirectly, in status planning.

Each type of planning described above will tend to use both a policy-making approach — whether internal to the affected community, or external with the aim of influencing a state or national language policy — and a cultivation approach in terms of planning to maintain or reclaim the language.

Language Planning in School-based Language Programs

Language planning is an essential part of a sound language revival program, and this includes school-based language revival programs (Hinton 2001b, p 51). The research process helps the community to set realistic goals and strategies. It also allows smaller projects to be incorporated into the overall strategy, leading to more cohesion between what might otherwise be a series of separate, disparate projects. With an effective community voice, Language planning will help to ensure that the community remains in control of setting the agenda for its internal language policy, rather than relinquishing it to outside agencies such as governments and educational bodies — although all of these may play an important role within the plan. And finally, good planning can assist by reducing and/or preventing ‘factionalism and rivalry that might otherwise arise around language and reduce the effectiveness of revitalisation efforts’ (Hinton 2001b, p 51).

Language revival programs

The language revival process can best be described as a continuum (Bobaljik & Pensalfini 1996, p 9), with the highest aspirational goal being ‘the development of programs that result in re-establishing a language which has ceased being the language of communication in the speech community and bringing it back into full use in all walks of life’ (Hinton 2001a, p 5). At the other end of the scale, a language revival program might be dealing with issues such as the loss of the language in various domains. This might include, for example, English dominating as the language of technology and the resulting loss of that type of vocabulary in the language under threat.

In the case of most Australian Indigenous languages, particularly along the south-eastern seaboard, most languages are deeply endangered. In these cases, the goal of the language revival program may not be to restore the language to all domains, as mentioned above. Indeed, although this may be an ultimate goal, it is important that the program also sets smaller, more manageable goals from which communities can see important milestones reached during a much longer language reclamation project, and might include such elements as the development of language learning materials and resources (Amery 2000, p 36). This kind of planning fits within the current policy and planning environment, in which funding is most often allocated for discrete projects rather than ongoing programs. If these projects can be planned in a way that enables the progressive achievement of smaller language revival outcomes within a larger community language revival program, then they will more effectively move the community towards its ultimate goal. In addition, a series of well-planned, interlinked projects that can be shown to be progressing towards an overall goal will assist communities in presenting a case for further funding commitments.

The importance of the language revival process being initiated by the community, or by a member of the community, cannot be understated. Indeed, a language program that is initiated by people outside the community, unless it gathers strong community support and is tailored to meet the needs of the community — as opposed to the perceived needs of the community — will be extremely unlikely to succeed in the long term (Hinton 2001a, p 5). Having said that, any language work carried out on endangered languages is important and valuable. Many very successful language programs were begun by one or two determined individuals from a community who gathered community support and technical expertise along the way.

It is useful for those involved in language planning for language revival programs, to be aware of the three types of planning discussed previously — status, acquisition and corpus planning (Eastman 1983, p 4). That is, planners need to understand both the sociocultural implications in status, acquisition and corpus planning, as well as the practical considerations involved in acquisition and corpus planning — for example, understanding what is involved in setting up a sound second-language learning program, as well as considerations around what it might mean to standardise a language and what a practical and commonly agreed orthography might look like. In addition, Amery (2000, p 36) discusses language revival from what he calls an ‘ecological approach’, arguing that language revival is essentially a social process, and that it is necessary to place a language within its wider social context. Language revival, particularly a language reclamation program, transforms a language from a written record to a ‘living, dynamic entity in the minds of people’ (Amery 2000, p 37).

A danger with the concept of language planning is that it might be seen to restrict the requirement for plans to be tailored to meet the needs of each individual community, since every community has a unique language issue (Ash et al. 2001, p 20). However, there are some common steps that communities can follow on their way to developing a language revival program for their language. Before beginning a program, a number of questions need to be addressed to help language planners develop a clear picture of the language’s oral, written and historical resources, as well as the number and age of speakers, and the domains, if any, in which the language is currently used and/or spoken. This will help determine what type of language revival program will best suit a particular community situation, and will also determine specific goals that the community will aim for (Amery 1995; 2000, p 36).

The need to understand the language environment from which communities come was taken up by Hinton 2001a (pp 6–7), who produced a modified version of Fishman’s (1991, in Hinton 2001a) eight steps for reversal of language shift. She emphasised that these steps are not necessarily to be followed sequentially, and that some may happen simultaneously. This has been reproduced below as an example of a useful model to follow:

Steps / Action
Step 1 / Language assessment and planning: Find out what the linguistic situation is in the community. How many speakers are there? What are their ages? What other resources are available on the language? What are the attitudes of speakers and non-speakers toward language revitalisation? What are realistic goals for language revitalisation in this community?
Step 2 / If the language has no speakers: Use available materials to reconstruct the language and develop language pedagogy …
Step 3 / If the language has only elderly speakers: Document the language of the elderly speakers. (This may also take place at the same time as other steps).
Step 4 / Develop a second-language learning program for adults … These professional-age and parent-age adult second-language learners will be important leaders in later steps.
Step 5 / Redevelop or enhance cultural practices that support and encourage use of endangered language at home and in public by first- and second-language speakers
Step 6 / Develop intensive second-language programs for children, preferably with a component in the schools. When possible, use the endangered language as the language of instruction …
Step 7 / Use the language at home as the primary language of communication, so that it becomes the first language of young children. Develop classes and support groups for parents to assist them in the transition … .
Step 8 / Expand the use of the Indigenous language into broader local domains, including community government, media, local commerce, and so on …
Step 9 / Where possible, expand the language domains outside of the local community and into the broader population to promote the language as one of wider communication, regional or national government … .

There are many different types of language revival programs that are used by communities, including school-based programs; language programs for children outside of school; and adult language programs. Each type of program has advantages and disadvantages associated with its use, but one crucial factor is that all language and cultural programs need to work alongside each other, rather than compete with each other, to support the overarching goal of language revival.