Let's discuss the process of language planning!

To begin with, I will summarize the main points introduced by Fasold in his book ‘The Sociolinguistics of Society’.

The fact that language vary and change, are maintained or abandoned, means that the linguistic alternatives are constantly available to speakers. The existence of these alternatives opens up the possibility that speakers might be influenced to choose some alternatives rather than others. The attempt to exert such conscious influences is what is meant by language planning and standardization.

Within language planning there are two main divisions:

-          LANGUAGE DETERMINATION   refers to the choice of larger linguistic units, languages, or dialects of language, for particular purposes. The major issue in the world is the selection of national languages.

-          LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT refers to the selections of the variants within a language or dialect. Ferguson subdivides language development into three parts: graphization, standardization, and modernization. The latter can be further broken down into vocabulary development and grammar( perhaps more precisely usage).

We can say that the first represents the model to follow and the second, the act of putting it into practice.

Most scholars who have an interest in language planning take either the instrumentalist or the socio-linguistic approach.

-          THE INSTRUMENTALIST APPROACH   emphasizes the function of language as a means of communication. As a result, language planning should be directed at making language more efficient and esthetically more pleasing in its communicative role.

-          THE SOCIO-LINGUISTIC APPROACH takes the point of view that language is a social resource. If this so, then language planning should be directed at using this resource wisely in achieving social goals, even if the planned alternative is not efficient or beautiful by some absolute criterion.

Language planning is usually thought as being conducted by governments, but efforts to influence language change can be made by religious organizations, organizations promoting the interests of subnational nationalities, business organizations, and even individuals. Specific means used in language planning range from the issuing of lists of approved vocabulary items to the designation of a particular linguistic variety as the only means of instruction in a country’s state schools.

There are certain definite LIMITATIONS on language planning:

1-    ACCEPTANCE: No chosen alternative will be successful unless it is accepted by the population the planning is being done for. Maximizing the chances of acceptance may depend on how well the plan conforms to the natural forces at work in society. Research indicates that the usual language-planning practices are more successful when they are directed at monitored language use ( when people are paying a lot of attention, not only to what they  are saying, but how they are saying it). This is one reason why language planning is more often directed at the written language than at the spoken form.

2-    COST: The use of cost-benefit analysis can help in the evaluation of a proposed plan. However, the consequences of language planning are often to be realized so far into the future that predictions become very unreliable.

IDENTITY PLANNING makes reference to people linguistic choices, especially the unmonitored ones which are likely to symbolize their sense of socio-cultural group identity.

Finally, the question to whether it is better to take an instrumental approach or a socio-linguistic one is open to debate. Linguists usually take the position that languages are structurally equal and that whether language variety is a standard or prestige variety or not is determined by social forces alone.