Conference Agenda

History—as a methodological or analytical approach—has not played a central role in Language Planning and Policy (LPP). In recent texts that aim to delineate the field (e.g., Johnson, 2013; Hult & Johnson, 2015; Tollefson & Pérez-Milan, 2018; Spolsky, 2012), Tollefson’s historical structural approach (e.g., 1991) and Johnson’s (2013) historical-textual analysis are the few instances in which historical thinking is considered. Even then, historical work is the object of sharp critique. Johnson (2013), for example, directly counterposes historical analysis to an “empirical turn” in LPP scholarship, arguing that history is prone to “idiosyncratic” researcher interpretations that confirm “a priori assumptions” (p. 129). Even if Wiley’s historical analyses of US language policy are widely acknowledged and respected, the historical method and thinking behind his scholarship rarely is (Author, in press).

This paper aims to recover traditions of historical thinking that have been overlooked. It begins with Wiley’s (e.g., 1999) comparative historical method and its potential for (1) fostering an ethical solidarity; (2) challenging dominant assumptions about continuity and inevitably in historical thinking; (3) and presenting meaningful alternatives for thinking about our past and future. The paper puts Wiley’s work in conversation with historical thinking present in different epistemological traditions, including: Safety Zone Theory (Lomawaima & McCarty, 2014), decolonial scholarship (e.g., Makoni & Mashiri, 2007; Tupas, 2019), Southern epistemologies (e.g., Adobea Nii-Owoo, forthcoming; Barise, 2023); and genealogical analysis (Beaton-Vazquez, 2019; Haque, 2012; Huang, 2013; Kawaguchi, forthcoming).

Based on this discussion of overlooked and emerging traditions of historical thinking in LPP, this paper argues that history can be an integral part of the field’s future by not taking the past for granted, denaturalizing discourses that circulate in the past and present, strategically challenging essentialist and binary thinking, and strategically attending to dis/continuity in our understanding of the past.

In (critical-)sociolinguistic theory-building on contemporary diversity, state language policies are sometimes deemed rigid, modernist and thus increasingly anachronistic (cf. Blommaert, 2015). Yet, how comes that governmental bodies seem to keep relying on supposedly obsolete language discourses and beliefs? In this presentation, we address the historicity of language policy-making, combining perspectives from language-ideological research (Blommaert, 1999) and political science (Cardinal & Sonntag, 2015).

Central is a protracted language-educational debate in Belgium. During the country's highly symbolical language conflict between speakers of Dutch and French, the position of la langue de l'autre as compulsory/optional modern language at school repeatedly heated the political negotiation table. Across five key moments (1932-1963-1980-2004-today) regarding this issue, we use parliamentary debates as vivid historical data. Reflexive thematic analyses (Braun & Clarke, 2022) served to track (1) which discourses shape the successive law-making processes (2) which MPs advocate them and for what policy choices, and (3) which discourses remain, change or recur.

Results demonstrate that, over almost a century, modern language education has faced very similar practical concerns and has continuously been connected to discourses of (e.g.) national unity, political evenhandedness, cultural enrichment and economic prospects. Nonetheless, these persistent motives appear heteroglossic, voiced at different times by various MPs for completely opposite purposes, oscillating with the political and socio-economic climate. This way, our diachronic perspective will illustrate that state language policy-making cannot be conceptualized unambiguously as deterministic, outdated or detached from societal complexities. Rather, we underline the political process in which discursively conscious MPs constantly (re)negotiate deep-rooted language-ideological sensitivities and state traditions.

References

Blommaert, Jan. 1999. Language Ideological Debates. De Gruyter.

Blommaert, Jan. 2015. "Commentary: Superdiversity old and new". Language & Communication, 44, 82-88.

Braun, Virginia & Victoria Clarke. 2022. Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. Sage.

Cardinal, Linda & Selma K. Sonntag. 2015. State Traditions and Language Regimes. MQUP.

This paper offers an analysis of the theoretical underpinnings that have shaped Language Planning and Policy (LPP) in the People's Republic of China since its establishment in 1949. A thorough examination of governmental documents and actions discerns three distinct phases in China's language policy evolution: initial explorations (1949-1986), independent advancements (1986-2000), and accelerated expansions (2001-present). The early explorations were characterized by the influence of Marxist guiding principles imported from the Soviet Union. Subsequent developments showcased voluntary theoretical innovations by Chinese scholars and practitioners based on local experiences in China. Official discourse maintains that all language policy practices in China adhere to the principles of the Party, emphasizing the populace's needs and grounding decisions in practical realities. Emerging concepts prevalent in Chinese literature encompass language life, linguistic service, language ability, language strategy, language governance, language poverty alleviation, and language modernization, among others. A comprehensive exploration of the evolution of these concepts offers valuable insights into the visions underpinning the practice of language policy in China.