- 84 Downloads
One may be quite safe in assuming that the notion of language planning is familiar to most sociolinguists, but it is the certainly the case that it remains rather an alien concept to city and urban planners. Here, the roots and assumptions of the theory and practice of language planning are reviewed so as to engage explicitly with those outside of this sub-discipline who may be, quite reasonably, unfamiliar with it. Beyond that, a number of important models, developed by certain key thinkers in language planning, are critically introduced. This includes an examination of the model of ethnolinguistic vitality and a critique of a number of important aspects of the emerging field of study known as ecolinguistics. Some of the better known works in ecolinguistics (e.g. Fill, 1993; Fill & Mühlhäusler, 2001; Mühlhäusler, 1996, 2000 & 2001) are not taken to offer a useful model as this work is extremely limited in its engagement with the urban context as well as notions of power. Rather, it is necessary to expose language planning to assume the nation-state as the normative polity, the only political unit that provides an adequate basis for language planning and policy activity. This compares to the conceptual disjunture that features in sociolinguistics where there is a failure to identify the problematic nature of the city as a site for the discipline.
KeywordsEthnic Identity Language Policy Minority Language Language Planning Intergroup Relation
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.