Rearticulating the Case for Micro Language Planning in a Language Ecology Context

Richard B. Baldauf Jr School of Education, University of Queensland, Australia

Language planning is normally thought of in terms of large-scale, usually national planning, often undertaken by governments and meant to influence, if not change, ways of speaking or literacy practices within a society. It normally encompasses four aspects: status planning (about society), corpus planning (about language), language-in-education (or acquisition) planning (about learning), and (most recently) prestige planning (about image). When thinking about these aspects, both policy (i.e. form) and planning (i.e. function) components need to be considered as well as whether such policy and planning will be overt or covert in terms of the way it is put into action. Language policy and planning on this scale has dominated current work in the field. However, over the past decade language planning has taken on a more critical edge and its ecological context has been given greater emphasis, leading to an increasing acceptance that language planning can (and does) occur at different levels, i.e. the macro, meso and micro. This shift in focus has also led to a rethinking of agency – who has the power to influence change in these micro language policy and planning situations. Given this break with the dominant macro history, the question may be asked, is this developing notion of micro language planning and local agency actually language planning? If so, what are its parameters? Micro language planning studies are examined to illustrate trends in the literature.

Keywords: language planning, micro language policy, language ecology, agency

Introduction

Since an earlier review of micro language policy and planning (LPP) was completed in 2003 (Baldauf, 2005a), there have been a number of studies completed, creating the need to rearticulate this area of language planning study. Although there continues to be traditional 'modernist' LPP work done, a range of studies are now appearing that take a more critical position, that extends the notion of language policy (and planning) to local contexts. These studies also tend to use discursive methods and are concerned with issues of agency, harking back to recommendations found in the early work of Luke et al. (1990).

In a more recent overview volume on the field of language policy and planning, Kaplan and Baldauf (1997: 52) suggested that language planning occurred at several levels, the macro, the meso and the micro. Although they provided several examples in the volume of micro-level planning (e.g. a company requiring business translation in North America (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997: 254ff)), this application of the principles of language policy and planning to micro situations was not a significant focus of the volume nor was it developed in any detail. As they indicated in their introductory chapter, when applied linguists think of language planning, they normally think of it in terms of large-scale, usually national, planning, often undertaken by governments and meant to influence, if not change, ways of speaking or literacy practices within a society. Nevertheless, Alan Davies, in a review of that volume, argued that the authors had been less convincing than they might have been about the centrality of applied linguistics to language planning and policy. He suggested that the authors tried to 'claim too much: language planning is best restricted to governmental activity, difficult as that may be to encompass' (Davies, 1999: 123).

Governmental activity is, of course, precisely where early language planning studies and practice had their roots, in macro sociolinguistics and related disciplines (see e.g. Fishman, 1974; Fox, 1975; Rubin & Jernudd, 1971) and it continues to be the site of the majority of language planning and policy related studies (and critiques). Furthermore, the notion of agency often lies with government officials, who are the prime actors in language planning activity (Baldauf & Kaplan, 2003). But, studies arising from this tradition raise the question of whether language policy and planning activity, almost by definition, is restricted to such large-scale (macro) governmental activity or can the frameworks that have been developed be applied differentially, but in an equally valid manner, to micro situations? Or, to put it another way, does language planning operate on a continuum from the macro to the micro? Is the resultant micro work still language policy and planning, or does it (should it) then fall into some other sub-field of applied linguistics or of some other discipline; e.g. sociolinguistics, education, critical discourse studies (CDA) or business studies?

More recently there has been some discussion of, and a number of specific studies reporting on language planning that has occurred at the micro level (i.e. language planning for businesses, educational bodies and other organisations). Although such studies often use different methodology – a focus on discourse, it might be argued that many of the same issues that can be found in the macro policy and planning frameworks and literature are...