Unpeeling the Onion: Language Planning and Policy and the ELT Professional

Abstract

The field of language planning and policy (LPP) provides a rich array of research opportunities for applied linguists and social scientists. However, as a multidisciplinary field that seeks to understand, among other things, why some languages thrive whereas others are marginalized, LPP may appear quite theoretical and far removed from the lives of many English language teaching (ELT) practitioners. This is unfortunate, because ELT professionals-be they teachers, program developers, materials and textbook writers, administrators, consultants, or academics-are involved in one way or another in the processes of LPP. The purpose of this article is to unravel those processes and the role of ELT professionals in them for both theoretical and practical reasons: theoretical, because we believe there are principled ways to account for why particular events affect the status and vibrancy of languages and speech communities, and practical, because we believe there are ways to influence the outcome of social processes. In general, we find that the principle of linguistic self-determinism-the right to choose (within limits) what languages one will use and be educated in-is not only viable but desirable for LPP decision making because it both promotes social equity and fosters diversity. In this article, we examine how ELT professionals are already actively engaged in deciding language policies, how they promote policies reaffirming or opposing hierarchies of power that reflect entrenched historical and institutional beliefs (see Phillipson & Skutnabb-Kangas, this issue), and how they might affect changes in their local contexts.T he field of language planning and policy (LPP) has witnessed significant growth over the past 25 years. Scholars from a variety of disciplines, including linguistics, education, political science, history, policy studies, law, demography, and sociology, have continually broadened

Opening up towards children’s languages: enhancing teachers’ tolerant practices towards multilingualism

“…Nevertheless, this leaves 23% of the teachers who do not completely comply with the official policy (Pulinx et al, 2015). On the mesolevel, schools can influence teachers through different school visions and teacher-team characteristics, such as language ideologies expressed by teacher colleagues (Ricento & Hornberger, 1996). Teachers in very mixed schools may also be affected by extra training about diversity often provided by these schools (Tatar & Horenczyk, 2003).…”

“…Therefore, it might be that teachers in more diverse schools think more positively about multilingualism. At the microlevel, every teacher brings different life experiences to school (Ricento & Hornberger, 1996). Some teachers have experience with multilingualism in their own homes; others do not.…”

“…Teachers might exteriorize ideologies in the field of the school that they interiorize from elsewhere. Teachers are exposed to influences at macro-, meso-, and microlevels (Ricento & Hornberger, 1996). At the macrolevel, mainstream language ideologies influence how teachers manage pupils' multilingualism.…”

Two languages in the air: a cross-cultural comparison of preschool teachers’ reflections on their flexible bilingual practices

“…Ricento and Hornberger (1996) as well as Menken and García (2010) place teachers at the very heart of language policy-making. However, little research attention has been paid to providing bilingual teachers with any deeper understanding of their own agency and their critical role in negotiating, constructing and reconstructing classroom language practices.…”

Language policy, in-migration and discursive debates in Wales

“…Nevertheless, in recent years, scholars such as AbuLughod (1975 in Ricento andHornberger 1996: 407) have criticised the 'historicalstructuralist' approach for being too deterministic and disregarding the ability of individuals and the collective to challenge the interests and ideologies of the dominant. This has led to a greater focus on the agency of local actors and the role that individuals and communities play in influencing language policies and resisting and undermining dominant groups and language policies (Tollefson 2013: 26-27;Ricento and Hornberger 1996). This development has led to tensions within the field of language policy regarding the importance of structure and agency (Johnson and Ricento 2015: 43).…”