Week 14

The readings this week regarding the impact of language policy and planning had many interesting and clarifying notes. Chapter 4 of “International English in Its Sociolinguistic Contexts” by McKay and Heng discusses some underlying consequences of designating an official language and how particular languages can cause an issue with different social attitudes. The definitions of language policy and planning, two words of which I was unaware of until now, put this stance on language direction in a different perspective for me. The authors explain how language planning aims at changing the behavior of a particular speech community (89) and involves making unified decisions about the position of the language. It usually has a direct effect on education and the status of the language which is why it is important for officials to keep language planning at a good stand point and in check. Language policy, on the other hand, refers to the goals of the actual language planning process that include a more general linguistic, political and social theme. I, as I believe many of my classmates did as well, was confused upon reading this section at first because I had predetermined that these two key terms meant the opposite. However, this chapter filled my gaps of confusion and uncertainty. Another key term discussed in this week’s reading was language politicking, which refers to the worldliness of a language and how the relationship between language and power, such as political, historical, and social contexts can affect the reflection of language in a society.

This week’s reading described how Singapore encourages multilingualism and the effect that encouragement has on their school curriculum (which involves 50% spent learning a second language). It was also surprising to read how Singapore’s official language is English and yet America hasn’t claimed English as their official language yet. Is this causing harm to our educational or political system?

This chapter also discusses bilingual education in the US with some positive viewpoints, along with English only movements. King and Fogel’s study on bilingualism was refreshing to read because it is my personal belief that bilingualism is a beneficial thing (although I know many disagree and there are many contributing factors we have learned in class that argue this).