Interests and Power in Language Management

PRAGUE PAPERS ON LANGUAGE,
SOCIETY AND INTERACTION
Edited by Jiří Nekvapil, Tamah Sherman and Petr Kaderka

VOLUME 6

Marek Nekula / Tamah Sherman / Halina Zawiszová (eds.)

Interests and Powerin Language Management

Bibliographic Information published by theDeutsche Nationalbibliothek
The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche
Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available online at
http://dnb.d-nb.de.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the
Library of Congress.
The preparation of this book was partially financed within thestatutory activity of the Czech Language Institute of the
Czech Academy of Sciences (RVO No. 6837809). The print is covered by
the University of Regensburg.

ISSN 1866-878X
ISBN 978-3-631-86061-8 (Print)
E-ISBN 978-3-631-86467-8 (E-Book)
E‐ISBN 978-3-631-87081-5 (EPub)
DOI 10.3726/b19351

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution
CC-BY 4.0 license. To view a copy of this license,
visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/© Marek Nekula / Tamah Sherman / Halina Zawiszová (eds.), 2022
Peter Lang – Berlin ∙ Bern ∙ Bruxelles ∙ New York ∙ Oxford ∙ Warszawa ∙ Wien
This publication has been peer reviewed.
www.peterlang.com

Contents
Contributors ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 7
Acknowledgments ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 11

Introduction
Marek Nekula /​Tamah Sherman /​Halina Zawiszová
Exploring interests and power in language management ��������������������������������� 15

Part I: Language ideologies
Goro Christoph Kimura
Why and how ideology matters for Language Management Theory ������������� 37
Petar Vuković
Council for the Standard Croatian Language Norm: The failure of ‘hard
power’ ���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 51
Jakub Kopecký
Divergent interests and argumentation in Czech Language Consulting
Center interactions ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 73
Stephanie Rudwick
Language politics at Stellenbosch University, South Africa ��������������������������� 101

Part II: Minority languages and minoritized languages
Roland Marti
Language management from above (and from below), from outside (andfrom inside): The case of Lower Sorbian ������������������������������������������������������������� 125
Ben Ó CeallaighInterests, power, and austerity in Irish-​language policy 2008–​2018 ������������ 149

6

Contents

Nadiya Kiss
Key actors in the organized language management of Ukraine: On thematerials of language legislation development and adoption ����������������������� 177
Solvita Burr (née Pošeiko)
The interaction of nationalist language ideology and the interests ofindividual actors: An unresolved dispute over language use on Latvian
house number signs ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 203

Part III: F oreign language policies, teaching and learning,
and useLisa Fairbrother
Interests and power in English education policy in Japan: A focus on thehigh school ‘Teaching/​Learning English in English’ policy ��������������������������� 237
Hiroyuki Nemoto
The investment in managing interests and power through study
abroad: Literacy and identities from a translingual perspective ������������������� 267
Vít Dovalil
German as a foreign and a minority language in the light of the interestsof social actors: The case of the Czech Republic ����������������������������������������������� 293
Chikako Ketcham
Non-​Japanese business people’s use of Japanese language in theirworkplace in Japan ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 329

Epilogue
Björn Jernudd
Some remarks on power in simple and organized language management  357
Index ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 369

Contributors
Solvita Burr (née Pošeiko) is a senior researcher at the Latvian Language Instituteof the University of Latvia and lecturer at the University of Washington (USA).
Her research interests focus on the comprehensive study of cityscapes (linguistic,
semiotic, cultural landscapes) in terms of multilingualism, language policy andlanguage management, glocalization, and edusemiotics.
Email: solvita.burr@gmail.com
Vít Dovalil is an assistant professor at the Department of Germanic Studies,Charles University, Prague. He obtained his MA in German and Political Sciences at the Faculty of Arts, and in law at the Faculty of Law, Charles University,
Prague. He earned his PhD in 2004. His research interests include language policy,
language planning and management of multilingualism in the European Union. He
also studies German as a foreign language in the Czech Republic as well as German
grammar both from the structural and sociolinguistic perspective (processes oflanguage standardization and destandardization).
E-​mail: vit.dovalil@ff.cuni.cz
Lisa Fairbrother is a professor in the Department of English Studies at Sophia
University, Tokyo, where she teaches sociolinguistics, intercultural interaction,
TESOL and English. Her main research interests focus on language management
in intercultural contact situations, particularly in the multilingual workplace, andduring study abroad. She has also conducted research on native-​speakerism andJapanese language education policy. Her research has been published in the International Journal of the Sociology of Language, the Journal of Asian Pacific Communication and the Japanese Journal of Language and Society and she is co-​editor of
A Language Management Approach to Language Problems: Integrating Micro andMacro Dimensions (John Benjamins) and The Language Management Approach: A
Focus on Research Methodology (Peter Lang).
Email: l-​fairbr@sophia.ac.jp
Björn Jernudd continues his search for solutions to describing and explaining
language problems in the framework of Language Management Theory. He also
works on describing the For language used among the For people in Darfur (theLand of the For in Sudan) and on organizing data once collected in 1968 in Papua
New Guinea on the early organized development of Tok Pisin.
E-​mail: jernudd@gmail.com
Chikako Ketcham is an adjunct lecturer at Sophia University and Musashino University Graduate School of Language and Culture, Tokyo, Japan, where she teaches
Japanese in academic and business fields. Her research interests include Business8

Contributors

Japanese language education and evaluation of Oral Proficiency Interviews inJapanese.
E-​mail: chikakoketcham@gmail.com
Goro Christoph Kimura, PhD, is professor at the Faculty of Foreign Studies,
Sophia University, Tokyo. He specializes in sociolinguistics, especially focusing on
the social functions of second and foreign languages, interlingual communication
as well as the revival and revitalization of minority languages (in Europe and Japan).
Recently he published the book Igengokan komyunikesyon no hoho: baikaigengo
o meguru giron to zissen [Interlingual communication strategies: arguments andreality], Tokyo: Taishukan 2021.
E-​mail: g-​kimura@sophia.ac.jp
Nadiya Kiss is a postdoctoral researcher in Giessen Center for East European
Studies (GiZO) in Justus Liebig University of Giessen, Germany. She received her
Master of Arts in Comparative Literature at National University of Kyiv-​Mohyla
Academy, Ukraine and defended her PhD dissertation on Ukrainian juridicial terminology in Yurii Fed’kovych National Chernivtsi University, Ukraine. She is also
the author of a book about rhetoric of Ukrainian Euromaidan protest. The main
fields of her research interests are sociolinguistics, language policies in Ukraine
and post-​Soviet countries, protest rhetorics and the language biography method.
E-​mail: Nadiya.Kiss@slavistik.uni-​giessen.de
Jakub Kopecký is a researcher at the Czech Language Institute, Czech Academyof Sciences. He earned his M.A. and Ph.D. in Czech Language from Charles University, Prague. His research focuses on language management in the Czech Republic,argumentation in interaction, online communication and interdiscursivity in multimodal discourse.
E-​mail: kopecky@ujc.cas.cz
Roland Marti is professor emeritus of Slavonic philology at Saarland University,
Germany. He studied in Basel, where he obtained his academic degrees, and in
Moscow. He has taught in Switzerland, Germany, France, and Ukraine. His areas ofinterest include historical philology (especially Old Church Slavonic), problems of
written languages, minority languages (especially Lower and Upper Sorbian) andproblems of their language management.
E-​mail: rwmslav@mx.uni-​saarland.deMarek Nekula is professor of Czech and West Slavic Studies at University ofRegensburg, Germany. He studied in Brno (CZ) and Berlin, where he obtained
his academic degrees respectively. His linguistic areas of interest include Czech
grammar, comparative linguistics and typology, (Czech-​German) bilingualismand (historical) sociolinguistics including language policy, language planning andlanguage management.
E-​mail: marek.nekula@ur.deContributors

9

Hiroyuki Nemoto is professor of Sociolinguistics at Ritsumeikan University,
Japan. He received his Ph.D. from Monash University, Australia. His researchinterests lie in the area of sociolinguistics, including sociocultural approaches to
SLA, intercultural interactions, identity transformation, translingual literacy, andlanguage management.
E-​mail: hnemoto@fc.ritsumei.ac.jp
Ben Ó Ceallaigh is a lecturer in Celtic Studies in Aberystwyth University in Wales.
He has a degree in Politics, Sociology and Philosophy and a MA in Language Planning from the National University of Ireland, Galway, and a PhD from the University of Edinburgh. He has worked in a professional and voluntary capacity on
language revitalization in Ireland and Scotland.
E-​mail: benoceallaigh89@gmail.com
Stephanie Rudwick is a linguistic anthropologist employed in the Departmentof African Studies/​Political Science at the University of Hradec Králové, Czech
Republic. She is also an honorary researcher at the University of KwaZulu-​Natal,
South Africa where she also conducts most of her fieldwork. Her research focuses
primarily on the sociocultural politics of language, race, ethnicity, and gender andshe has published widely on these topics.
E-​mail: stephanie.rudwick@uhk.cz
Tamah Sherman is a researcher at the Czech Language Institute, Czech Academyof Sciences, and an assistant professor at the Institute of General Linguistics,
Charles University, Prague. Her research focuses on interaction and meta-​linguistic behavior, using the framework of Language Management Theory, Ethnomethodology, and Conversation Analysis. The particular focus of her investigationis on situations of multiple language use in the Czech Republic after 1989.
E-​mail: tamah.sherman@ff.cuni.cz
Petar Vuković is a professor at the Department of West Slavic Languages andLiteratures, University of Zagreb, where he teaches Czech linguistics. His research
focuses on sociolinguistics and language standardization.
E-​mail: petar.vukovic@ffzg.hr
Halina Zawiszová is an assistant professor at the Department of Asian Studies at
Palacký University Olomouc. Her main research foci revolve around topics related
to emotion, language, and social interaction. She is also interested in managementof foreign languages and social identities at different levels of organization.
E-​mail: halina.zawiszova@upol.cz

newgenprepdf

Acknowledgments
The creation of any book is a long process. This was also the case with our volume.
Along the way, we have experienced a wide range of assistance. For this, wewould like to thank those who have contributed to and supported the creation ofthis book.
The road to this book began with the symposium of the same name, Interests andPower in Language Management, the fifth in the series of international language
management symposia. This symposium took place in September 2017 at the University of Regensburg. The realization of the symposium would not have been possible without the work of the scientific committee and local organizing committee.
At minimum, we would like to thank Jiří Nekvapil and Marián Sloboda, whose
experience and ideas helped the symposium to succeed. However, we would also
like to thank all of the numerous participants who, in the discussion, further developed the questions raised by this symposium. Their lively engagement served as
encouragement for us to tackle the volume as well.
On the main road to the actual realization of the volume, we were able to rely
on many helpers who, however, cannot be named, as is required in an anonymous
peer-​review process. The gratitude due to them for their unselfish help, without
which such a publication could not be produced, is not diminished by this—​rather
the opposite. We would also like to thank the student assistants who supported
us in the formal review of the accepted contributions. Tabea Knüppe is mentioned here as a representative. Above all, we would like to thank the authors fortheir active cooperation in the creation of the volume, as well as for their understanding that the creation process lasted somewhat longer than we thought at the
beginning.
Last but not least, we would like to thank Jiří Nekvapil as one of the editorsof the series in which this volume appears who accompanied and encouraged usalong the way and who also did the final reading of the book. We would also liketo thank Björn Hansen and Paul Rössler from the University of Regensburg, who
supported us in finding funding for the volume and its open access publication.
The editors

Introduction

Marek Nekula /​Tamah Sherman /​Halina Zawiszová

Exploring interests and power inlanguage management
1 I ntroductory remarks
This volume continues in the tradition of volumes and special journal issues
exploring the language management (LM) framework with a focus on one of its
specific aspects or broader themes. In the first of these, a special issue of the Journalof Asian Pacific Communication (Marriott & Nekvapil 2012), the emphasis wasplaced on the first phase of the LM process, noting. Most recently, volumes havebeen published devoted to methodology in LM research (Fairbrother, Nekvapil &Sloboda 2018) and the interaction of micro and macro perspectives in LM (Kimura& Fairbrother 2020). As can be observed, multiple steps have been taken toward
a comprehensive picture of LM, but the future leads in many more thus far insufficiently explored directions. Interestingly, moving along these paths involves
going back to the beginnings of both Language Management Theory (LMT) and
Language Planning and Policy (LPP) and examining the degree to which individual
aims, topics and perspectives in selected original programs have been fulfilled.
Interests and power, the themes selected for the present volume, have beenlong acknowledged as important factors in various approaches in LPP. Despite thisfact, it is not an exaggeration to claim that very little focused attention has been
devoted to them compared to other factors such as motivation or goals of LPP.
In LM, with its focus on noted deviations from norms, the evaluations of thosedeviations, and the design and implementation of adjustments, it can be, however, argued that interests and power are in fact the driving forces, observable anddescribable at every step of the process. The interests can be seen as a backgroundfor established norms and norms that emerge through simple and especially organized LM, and power may determine their reach in the process in LM. In fact, theseminal LM text from Björn H. Jernudd and Jiří V. Neustupný (1987) discusses thispoint extensively.
In order to show the importance of interests and power for LM, we first musthave a look at how these concepts have thus far been understood. As the texts inthis volume reveal, both are seen as something somehow possessed (or lacked) bysocial actors, power is acquired (or lost), someone may be in a “position of power,”or we can talk about “power dynamics,” “power balances” and “imbalances” or“hierarchies,” while interests are “declared,” “negotiated,” “pursued,” or “achieved.”
On the other hand, languages or other non-​human entities or concepts can also
have or give power, but not interests and intentions.

16

Marek Nekula et al.

2 I nterests
Interests can be viewed as dispositions perceived as positive or beneficial for individuals, groups, institutions, and the like. They can take the form of internal psychological entities such as desires or needs, or be more explicit, aware, or declared,
such as ambitions, aims, ends, or goals. They may be personal, political, ideological, material, or otherwise. We can illustrate this with the example of an act
of LM: learning a specific language. It may serve one’s personal interests if thelanguage is used in a (mixed) family, one’s political interests if the acquisition ofmajority and minority language is legally regulated, one’s ideological interests if
the ethnic identity is respected, or one’s material interests if it is instrumental infinding employment.
Jiří V. Neustupný has defined interests as “aspirations for a certain state of affairs that is favourable to the subject” (Neustupný 2002: 3). And in their seminal
1987 text, a reaction to Brian Weinstein’s (1987) exposition on the role of interests
in language planning, Jernudd and Neustupný discuss how varied this “subject”
can be, pointing out that there is often no set of universal interests that can beassociated with an individual society or community. Individual interests may vary
within a single community, and the collective interests of different communities
may vary greatly or even stand in opposition or conflict to one another.
There are many examples of such language conflicts between linguistic communities within a society (for example between Walloons and Flemish in Belgium, Catalonians and Spaniards in Spain or Czechs and Germans in the Czech
Lands) in which linguistic and non-​linguistic interests are combined. In language
conflicts, the suppression of linguistic interests of a minority or dominated community to communicate in their language may stem from the linguistic, social,and economic interests of a majority or ruling community which are also realized
through the control of communicative domains. On the one hand, the communicative norms based on the differing status of respective languages seem to have to
do with interests and power of the linguistic majority or dominant community andwith powerlessness of linguistic minority or dominated community, as describedin classical theories of nation building and LPP (Hroch 2015; Haugen 1966). On
the other hand, we have to deal with the enforcement of non-​linguistic (social andeconomic) interests of a social group within a minority or dominated community
by combining them argumentatively with the linguistic interests of the whole linguistic minority or dominated linguistic community. This is one way of mobilizing
the members of such communities in order to gain power in the fight against theimagined linguistic (and social) suppression, as constructivist theories of nationbuilding and “imagined communities” suggest (Gellner 1983; Anderson 1991). They
even contest the “imagined non-​communities” to save the interests of children
educated outside of their linguistic community (Zahra 2010). These “monolingual”
linguistic communities and their interests are the result of the narration of “manyas one” (Bhabha 2008 [1990]: 202).

Exploring interests and power in language management

17

Interests can be observed at various stages of the LM process. Foreign accentsand learner varieties in the public domain, on the one hand, or the absence ofa foreign variety understood as a necessary part of the repertoire of elites (inCentral Europe Latin, later German, and now English), on the other hand, canbe noted (and evaluated) by the members of the majority or by elites (Jernudd& Neustupný 1987: 78 f.) to promote their non-​linguistic (social, economic)
interests—​to delimit and to control public and elite domains linguistically. At thestage of adjustment design and its implementation, the interests behind the norms
mentioned above (“native” standard of majority language; knowledge of selected
foreign language(s)), are implemented by the school that qualifies for the publicsphere (standard needed in the legal system, authorities, education, media) andspecific elite domains (English needed in international trade, economy, diplomacy, research) as well as by (language) certificates needed for job or residency
applications. It is quite similar to the process of standardization of a language thatcan be seen as a result of a language planning process with respect to the educatedvariety whereas territorial and uncultivated social dialects were excluded. This
enables the educated (bourgeois) middle classes of a linguistic community to use
their cultivated code unfamiliar to other classes and, in this way, to realize theirmaterial and social interests—​to delimit and control social resources as well as thetransfer of knowledge within a linguistic community (Linke 1996).
In his paper on desegregation of the American education system by the act
from 1954, Derrick Bell (1980) shows, however, that the interests of social groups
need not be only in conflict but can also go together. The change in the American
education system started with desegregation, of course, can be interpreted in different ways. On the one hand, the interests of black Americans in obtaining (more)equality in education seem to be enforced against the interests of the white middle
classes. With respect to changing social settings inside and outside of America, Bellon the other hand sees the desegregation of the education system as the result ofa “convergence” of interests. This change in the American education system thenmade America more credible, both internally for (black) veterans fighting in WorldWar II for freedom and equality and externally, for the people of the third world
where the US was in competition with the Soviet Union. Bell also interprets thischange as a chance for industrialization of the southern states. In this sense, theact from 1954 was passed in the interest of white middle classes. There are social,political, and economic interests behind the act that opened the door for the implementation of norms of social equality in the American education system.
Of course, we can view the concept of interest convergence more generally
and apply it also to language issues and LPP. The European Charter for Regionalor Minority Languages, adopted as a convention on June 25, 1992 by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and entered into force on March 1,
1998, can then be interpreted in a similar way. The Charter helps to satisfy the
linguistic interests of autochthonous minorities within the European nation-​states. At the same time, it also legally solidifies the hierarchy of majority andminority languages and supports the social, political, and economic interests of18

Marek Nekula et al.

majorities within the European nation-​states by stabilizing them internally as
democratic and giving them (and the EU, which adopts these principles) democratic authority externally—​in the international context. Against the backgroundof linguistic and non-​linguistic conflicts in the post-​Yugoslav and post-​Soviet territories in the early 1990s, the EU seems to be a haven of stability also from thelinguistic point of view although some states—​like Greece, Bulgaria, Lithuania, andLatvia—​have not signed it to avoid commitments to their minorities. The Charteris, however, without sanctions and is intended to protect only the autochthonous
minority languages (cf. Raos 2015). The interests of allochthonous minorities (i.e.,
new migrant groups), which may be similar to the linguistic and social interestsof autochthonous minorities, are not involved in the Charter. This is because thesatisfaction of the interests of the allochthonous minorities would probably beeconomically more expensive and socially more complex and likely connectedwith a loss of full control over the communication in the public space, which the
majority in the nation-​states is interested in and why the majority language ispresented as more important than the minority one. Both types of minorities seemto accept these language ideologies and the majority language as necessary social
capital and learn it to satisfy their material interests. To promote and to realize
such linguistic and social interests, linguistic communities seem to need power.

3 P owerThere are many concepts of power discussed with respect to and applied in theanalysis of LPP as well as interaction and discourse. Antonio Gramsci and Louis
Althusser, for example, investigated the mechanism of “cultural hegemony” moderated by institutions such as churches or schools that appeal to individuals who
voluntarily submit themselves—​linguistically to the standard or to the majority
language—​in hope for social advancement (see Busch 2017: 92 f.). Michel Foucault discussed the “dispositive of power” based on institutional mechanisms andknowledge structures established in and controlled by (public) discourse (Foucault
1984: 109) which has to do not only with its categories but also with varieties andlanguage choice. Norman Fairclough (1989) analyzed the power behind a (public)
discourse and exercised in and performed through it. In this sense, the public discourse on allochthonous and autochthonous minorities enables or now allows
the (limited) public use of the autochthonous minority language but not of theallochthonous minority language. This, of course, reflects the power distribution ina society. Pierre Bourdieu (1991) explained the relationship between language andpower through the concept of “social capital,” accumulated by a language within a“social field,” that differs from the social capital of other languages in the “language
market.” In the linguistic exchange, “the power relations between speakers [ofthese languages] or their respective groups are actualized” symbolically (Bourdieu
1991: 37). Florian Coulmas (2005) discussed language(s) and (their differing) powerwith respect to a “language regime” based on legal acts and language ideologies
that limit speakers in their language use with respect to space established sociallyExploring interests and power in language management

19

and/​or territorially. This concept seems to apply to both monolingual and multilingual regimes.
In research on LM, reference is made most frequently to Neustupný’s definitionof power as “the capacity to realize one’s interests” (Neustupný 2002: 4), whichmore or less corresponds to the understanding of social and economic power ofindividuals and groups typical for many fields. The power then can be exercised,for example, by a teacher controlling the interaction and giving permission to a
specific student to speak on the micro level as well as by institutions authorized
by the majority that decide which language will be used as language of instruction
and taught as subject on the macro level. In a later text, Neustupný talks about
power as the object of management and uses the term “behavior-​toward-​power”(Neustupný 2004: 3). The power that he sees behind the establishment and dissolution of (linguistic and communicative) norms can be then noted and evaluated withrespect to these norms and adjustments can be designed and implemented in thisway as well. The linguistic and communicative norms can thus be strengthened or
weakened based on the ways in which they are used to realize individual or groupinterests. Within LM, the power is established and questioned through choice anduse, the image and proficiency of varieties and languages as well as images oflanguage communities or territories. In this sense, the “behavior-​toward-​power” isrealized as “behavior-​toward-​language.”
In one case study, Neustupný (2004) specifically explores the process of assimilation of university students from abroad in Japan. Here, language acquisition isconnected with power. On the one hand with the empowerment of the students
learning Japanese, in which the “competence to communicate to fulfil […] personal
interests” is achieved, and on the other hand with disempowerment of these verysame students, when individuals and groups subordinate linguistically (Neustupný
2004: 5). This subordination satisfies the interests of the majority or dominant groupwithin a given context. These two phenomena then come together. In anotherexample, wives of Japanese employees recruited in East Asian countries are, on
the one hand, disempowered by having to learn the language of their Japanesehusbands, but on the other hand they are empowered by successfully satisfying
their needs and interests by learning Japanese.
In extension to Steven Lukes’s distinction of “five types of power: coercion,
influence, authority, force and manipulation” (Neustupný 2004: 6), Neustupný further suggests other types of power, such as status, prestige, and domination. He
imagines “domination based on the norm that participants who are coerced toassimilate; the same is true of those who are influenced, possess lower authority,
are affected by force, or are manipulated” (Neustupný 2004: 6). This applies not
only for minority languages but also for the language of social groups like non-​experts, children, etc.
There have been a number of studies in which power has been discussed inrelation to LM as well as to LMT. Within this theoretical frame, Tamah Sherman(2009) discusses the choice of language as the struggle for power in interculturalsituations, whereas Jiří Nekvapil and Sherman (2013) show the impact of power

20

Marek Nekula et al.

on language ideologies supporting the non-​acquisition of local language by actors
with power on the one hand and the acquisition of dominant—​glocal or global
languages like German or English—​by actors that are interested in achieving
greater power in the diglossic settings of multilingual companies in Central Europe on the other hand. The first group is empowered in this way to control thecommunication on the level of top management but disempowered with respect tocommunication on the production level. The second group is disempowered in thecommunication on the level of top management but empowered with respect tocommunication with the production level. The enforcement of interests may also
block other interests.
Likewise, Lisa Fairbrother (2015) analyzes the role of power established andresisted in LM activities at the micro level. In her study, she views the power basedin linguistic and ethnic identity on the one hand, and on the other hand, she quotes
Foucault and Sara Mills and emphasizes the “fluid” character of power “negotiatedthrough interaction,” in which “everyone can be both powerful and powerless”(Fairbrother 2015: 60). Based on “language management summaries” in semi-​structured interviews with plurilingual residents in Japan, the author analyzes specificsituations in which the choice of and proficiency in Japanese “reinforce social hierarchy, transmit ideology and maintain the authority of institutions” or individuals(Fairbrother 2015: 59), whereas the declared ignorance of Japanese—​at least byactors with a Caucasian, not Asian appearance who are not expected to masterJapanese—​helps to resist the power of Japanese communicative norms by switching
to contact norms. This strategy helps to realize individual actors’ interests.
Junko Saruhashi (2018), however, shows long-​term perspectives relevant for
personal empowerment of various actors. Marián Sloboda (2020: 19) explores
empowerment within the Vietnamese minority in the Czech Republic. He showsthat the “communication in Vietnamese enabled the Vietnamese entrepreneurs tocontinue their businesses,” but this practice at the same time does not encouragethem “to acquire Czech or other language skills which would pay off in the longrun.” The consequence is their disempowerment: they remain dependent on
providers of products and services available in Vietnamese. In this case, there is a
conflict between the interests of different actors as well as between the interests
within the same (group of) actor (s). Stephanie Rudwick (2018) focuses on the
power of languages that are connected with specific actors. Afrikaans seems to bedisempowered by the use limited to South Africa and specifically by the legacy ofapartheid implicating problematic constellations between actors with and without
power, whereas English is empowered by the expectations of actors to satisfy theinterests of their social elevation and global action. English also profits from notbeing bound to an ethnic identity like Afrikaans.
All these papers demonstrate the impact of agencies in LM activities in different
directions and on different levels. This impact has also been observed in the general LPP literature. Richard B. Baldauf (2006) presented an overview of shifting tendencies in the study of language planning (in which he also included LM), movingfrom the exclusive macro focus on the activities of polities or large organizations

Exploring interests and power in language management21

to the meso and micro levels, or even to the interaction between these levels.
Within this shift, contexts, actors, and agency in language planning activities
were posited as a new nexus from which to view these activities. There have been
many applications of Baldauf’s conception, including that of Ben Fenton-​Smith
and Laura Gurney (2016), who examine language policy in regard to academic
language and learning at Australian universities. They also empirically elaborate
the classification of four types of power related to actors with power, with expertise, with influence, and with interest introduced by Shouhui Zhao (2011) and applied in this volume by Vít Dovalil. Fenton-​Smith and Gurney (2016: 74) work withthese agencies in relation to “the various levels and forms of power invested in therange of actors involved in policy and planning.” They conclude that “people withexpertise” and “people with interests” do not have the same position in academic
language planning as “people with power” and “people with influence” (Fenton-​
Smith and Gurney 2016: 74). However, it should be pointed out that these authors,citing Zhao and Baldauf (2012), view people with interests (in this case, primarily
students) as people who have only interests, that is, who do not have power, influence, or expertise.
There are, of course, also other possibilities for the examination of theinterrelations between power and agency. For the specific purpose of negotiationof the standard variety, Ulrich Ammon (2005: 33) models a social power field inwhich four instances are involved in the negotiation of the standard variety: norm
authorities, language experts, codifiers, and their manuals as well as exemplary
texts produced by exemplary authors and speakers. This can be applied not only
for the elaboration of the standard variety within the organized LM but also forthe production of a specific standard text within the simple LM. Robert L. Cooper(1989) distinguished in general between formal elites, influentials, and authorities
and mentioned the possibility of overlap between these categories. He traditionallyconnected the power with the top-​down direction. He did not categorize the actors
authorized by interests and expertise, who can unfold the power in the bottom-​up
direction, within the power frame. However, they can also be successful, as illustrated by the examples discussed in the various texts in this volume.

4 I nterests and power in LM
As mentioned above, it cannot be stated that interests and power have never been
important for LMT. Its foundational paper, published by Jernudd and Neustupný in
1987, entitled “Language planning: For whom?,” was devoted predominantly to theissue of interests. Even the question “for whom?” in the title indicates the primary
position of interests in interventions into language. The authors stress the need to
examine the interests involved in each phase of the LM process, and distinguishbetween linguistic interests (based on perceived communicative needs) and non-​linguistic (social and economic) interests. In one of the first volumes organized to
combine the work of the Japanese, Australian, and Central European schools of
LM (Nekvapil & Sherman 2009), the position of power in LM was stressed in the

22

Marek Nekula et al.

texts coming out of the Central European School (see in particular Sloboda 2009;
Sherman 2009; Lanstyák & Szabómihály 2009). Our aim in this volume, then, is tofocus on both interests and power in their interplay as well as to discuss their roleand use within the process of the simple and organized LM on both the micro andthe macro level.
At first glance, we can observe that both interests and power are present inand guide or underlie the character of all phases of the LM procedure (i.e., noting,evaluation, adjustment design, implementation, and feedback). First of all, it isclearly observable that interests and power influence what is noted. This is related
to the question of norm creation, expansion, and maintenance, for example, inthe management of standard language varieties. Noting deviations from the standard variety in the classroom, for example, may be part of the job description of
the teachers in public schools, who identify colloquial, dialect, and “non-​native”
variants and varieties that deviate from the standard. The teachers are authorized
for this job by both their institutionally approved education and expertise as wellas their role in the school system. The school is responsible for the acquisition ofstandard by the linguistic academy. The academy is responsible for standardization
established for the standardization of public communication in whose effectivity
the institutional authorities are interested in. This also has a social and economic
effect. To guarantee the implementation of these interests of a linguistic community, both give them the power to influence pupils’ grades, and ultimately, their
future paths in public life that has to do with their material interests. In order torealize their individual interests, the pupils submit to the teachers and acquisitionof the (foreign) standard. They later become empowered by their previous disempowerment. That is why they and their parents also accept further steps of the LMoriented to the acquisition of the standard variety on the micro level of a school
and an interaction as well as on the macro level of the school system and authorities responsible for standardization (on standard variety as process and product ofLM cf. Dovalil 2013).
Evaluation is not only closely connected with noting in LM, but a positive or
negative evaluation genuinely has to do with interests as explained above. The
positive or negative evaluation implies a specific perspective: some linguistic phenomena or language choices are denied, while others are considered welcome,suitable, appropriate, or even desirable. In some institutional situations, such as
in the classroom or among professional language managers (editors, consultants,etc.), the noting and evaluation of style or non-​standard are guided by the interestsof the given institution such as public schools or media that authorize schools andother actors with expertise for evaluation as well, whereas actors whose activities are the objects of this evaluation rather note and evaluate this institutionalnoting and evaluation without the power to defend themselves against it. There
are of course also other examples of the interplay between interests and power.
For example, Czech used in a memorandum addressed from Czech representatives of a Bohemian corporation to the ministry in Vienna before 1918 (see Nekula
2003: 169) not only was noted but also was evaluated negatively by the addressees.

Exploring interests and power in language management

23

The switch from German to Czech was a clear deviation from the norm of standardized communication between center and periphery based on and perpetuating
the linguistic interest of a simple, reliable, and effective communication within amultilingual society. These interests went hand in hand with the non-​linguistic
interest of a unified state represented by central institutions in Vienna. In thiscase, the negative evaluation of this deviation is undertaken from the “power side”
but there is of course also a positive evaluation of this deviation by the Czech
representatives of the Bohemian corporation, albeit without the power to establish a new communicative norm before 1918 which would correspond with theirinterests for more autonomy and participation. The deliberate deviation from theexisting norm, however, can be seen as a negative evaluation of the existing norm
by replacing it with an alternative (subversive) language practice.
Adjustment design in LM follows along the line of the interests and power mentioned above. Adjustments are adhered to and taken as legitimate depending on
who designs and refers to them. This applies for standard and non-​or substandard
in general, as implied already in terminology, as well as for orthography reforms
specifically, that both are designed by and refer to language experts and language
institutions as actors with expertise and power. These can argue for and legitimate
orthography reform linguistically by declared modernization of spoken language
or rationality of language system, based in and acceptable with respect to linguistic interests of language experts as actors with expertise, whereas non-​linguistic opponents of orthographic reforms do not need to listen to these arguments
and can argue and legitimate their opposition non-​linguistically, based on cultural
tradition and identity, the need for democratic participation in language issues
as well as economic issues. Such opposing arguments, based on non-​linguistic
interests, can even weaken an orthographic reform designed by actors with expertise before this can be implemented, if actors with influence such as editors ofmedia are involved and support other actors with (non-​linguistic) interests andconvince the actors with power. This happened, for example, as amendments of
the Czech orthography reform from 1993 were adopted by the Czech Minister of
Education. The minister, interested in support by the media and public in the next
election, then suspended parts of the Czech orthography reform from 1993 (seeBermel 2007 for more details).
The actors with power can even deny an orthography reform, as exemplified
by rejection of the Slovak orthography from 1931 designed by actors with expertise, who were close to the ideology of Czechoslovakism bridging the differences
between Czech and Slovak, because their linguistic and other interests differedfrom the interests of Slovak actors with interests and/​or power, who could not
identify with the Czechoslovak ideology. However, there also was a remarkabledifference between actors with expertise with respect to their linguistic and non-​linguistic interests. As Roland Marti (1993) shows, whereas “unionists,” interested
in the linguistic unity of the emerging Czechoslovak state, preferred to see Czechand Slovak as variants of the “Czechoslovak” state language and were open for convergence in orthography of both languages to enable communication within the

24

Marek Nekula et al.

state common to Czechs and Slovaks, “separatists” were interested in maintaining
the difference of Czech and Slovak orthography. In the orthography commission organized by Matica slovenská (Slovak Foundation) that prepared the 1931
Slovak orthography reform supervised by the young Czech linguist Václav Vážný
(1892–​1966), the “unionist” actors with expertise could push through. However,
the reform could not be fully implemented during the 1930s, as discussed below.
Similar “unionist” and “separatist” arguments were also discussed with respect
to adjustments of local standard variants of British vs. American English or of“Binnendeutsch” (Core German) vs. Austrian German. This “unification” also
plays a role in the simple LM. Preparing his books for publication in Leipzig in theGerman Empire, Franz Kafka (1883–​1924) tried to support the reception of his bookby a broad German public by avoiding Prague and Austrian variants of German
and by preferring variants used in the German Empire with respect to codificationin German manuals of codification as well as with respect to his norm authorities(see Blahak 2015; Nekula 2016 for more details). This individual disempowerment,a kind of pre-​interaction management, was intended as empowerment of his texts
in the public sphere.
Coming back to the example of minority languages, we can see that theadjustments depend on context and that experts’ adjustments are not listened
to and taken as legitimate in the same way in different contexts. With respect
to linguistic and non-​linguistic interests of speakers of autochthonous minority
languages, the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (1992) argues
for education and participation in the minority language not only as a way tomaintain language, culture and identity of a minority, but also to guarantee thehealthy development of the next generation and the fair democratic participationof minorities and their members in societal issues. These adjustments are not madeby experts or rather not listened to by political representations if allochthonous
minorities are addressed because of political, economic, and cultural interests ofmajorities that provide and control political and cultural institutions and economic
resources. Because the implementation of these adjustments probably would be
too expensive and could lead to the disintegration of communication, the actors
with power representing the majority as actors with interests take advantage of
their capacity to realize their interests and to prevent other interests.
The implementation of an adjustment within LM is closely connected with its
design. Adjustments designed by actors with interest but without power, expertiseand influence (cf. Zhao 2011: 910) will be hardly considered, let alone implemented.
This can change when the adjustment is adopted by actors with influence(or power), such as in the LM for more gender equality or the identity politics
expressed by choosing gender and identity sensitive language categories. They canhave capacity to realize their interests in spite of the position of actors with expertise arguing, for example, based on the neutrality of generic masculinum, limitsof gender-​sensitive language use inherent to flexive languages, and uneconomic
character of gender-​sensitive language use.

Exploring interests and power in language management

25

Coming back to Bell’s example for the concept of “convergence” of interests,
the adjustments for maintenance of minority languages designed by activists ofautochthonous minorities, that is, actors with interests, will be implemented on
the national level if the actors with power are interested in doing so, to legitimize
themselves inside and outside as democratic. This symbolic capital makes themable to prevent the implementation of the same adjustments for allochthonous
minorities. With respect to the European Charter for Regional or Minority
Languages (1992), however, the authorities of participating nation-​states decidethemselves which autochthonous minority language(s) will be protected and how.
Supported by actors with expertise, they also decide what is a language and what
is a dialect and which adjustments will be implemented. They can also restrict theadjustments territorially according to their political and economic capacities andinterests. Then, the Charter does not contain any possibility of enforcing the rightsof minority languages at the European level. The implementation of the Charter,of course, also can be expanded by actors with power in reaction to critique ofactors with influence or expertise, as explored in this volume by Dovalil, as well as
restricted by actors with power, as discussed in this volume by Ben Ó Ceallaigh.
They also were not implemented in nation-​states that deliberately did not sign theCharter.
The questions of who has the capacity to realize one’s interests in this phaseof LM process, that is, who decides whether an adjustment is implemented, whochooses the implementation actors and who decides which adjustments are
implemented for whom and how, can of course be seen in other areas of language
use as well. With respect to the Czech orthography reform of the 1990s, forexample, we can see that its opponents, who were the actors with interests in thiscase, had—​supported by actors with influence and some actors with expertise—​the capacity to influence the responsible ministry as the most prominent actor
with power and in this way to restrict the proposed adjustments to some extent
and protect their linguistic and non-​linguistic interests by using the old doublets(connected with rejection of acquisition of new orthographic norms argued aspreservation of cultural identity). They nevertheless did not have the capacity toprevent the implementation of the orthography reform by actors of power throughthe school system educating the next generation of users of Czech that prefer toacquire the progressive doublet forms.
Similar questions also apply to a proposed fifth phase of LM process, that is, thefeedback or post-​implementation stage, that Kimura (2014, 2020) suggests in general: Who evaluates the implementation as successful or not? And who is authorized to do so, that is, to decide about the finish or restart of the LM process? This
is what happened with the Slovak orthography reform of 1931. The Slovak public(actors with interests), the actors with influence as well as the “separatists” withexpertise around the Slovak journal Slovenská reč (Slovak Language) noted andevaluated the results of this reform negatively. This is why a new Slovak orthography reform was expected and undertaken later. This reform was meant to be
based both in the linguistic interests (communicative needs based in continuity

26

Marek Nekula et al.

with the previously used orthography) and in non-​linguistic ones (ethnic identity). The Czech linguists were disqualified from this endeavor by actors withpower: Vážný was suspended as professor of the university in Bratislava at theend of 1938 and repatriated back to Prague. The later reforms of Slovak orthography and LM activities with respect to Slovak vocabulary enlarged rather than
only maintained the linguistic distance between Czech and Slovak by invoking
the interests of an imagined Slovak language community constructed in the public
discourse as one. Similar processes can be seen, for example, in connection withthe elaboration of national languages as a part of the nation building in the post-​
Yugoslavian territories discussed in this volume by Petar Vuković.

5 Th
 e contents of this volume
This volume consists of thirteen chapters divided into three parts and an epilogue. The three parts are entitled: Language ideologies, Minority languages andminoritized languages, and Foreign language policies, teaching and learning, anduse. The topics of these three parts emerged organically in the process of preparing
this volume but also represent the key issues that are repeatedly addressed wheninterests and power in LM become the foci of scholarly investigation. The majorityof the chapters were presented at the symposium Interests and Power in Language
Management hosted by the University of Regensburg in 2017. They make use of
LMT, but other analytical tools, models, and methods are also adopted. The individual chapters work with highly diverse types of data and concern a variety oflanguages, areas, institutions, and polities. They approach the theme of this volume
from a range of different angles and perspectives, thereby collectively developing
our understanding of the role of interests and power in LM.
Language ideologies form an essential, albeit often ignored or backgrounded
component of LM, which is in more or less explicit ways present in all the chaptersof this volume. Four chapters that deal with the questions related to language
ideologies most overtly are included in the first part of the volume, entitled
Language ideologies.
The first chapter is of a more general and theoretical nature and, as such,contributes to the general discussion presented above. Penned by Goro Kimura, it
offers an overview of the ways in which interests and power have been approachedin LMT thus far and advocates for the notion of language ideology to be fully
incorporated into the theory, arguing that it forms a vital part of LM processes
both at the macro and micro level. Kimura suggests that language ideology reflectsinterests and constitutes a resource for power negotiation, and hence, may serve
as a conceptual framework that allows us to study the metalinguistic environmentof LM processes. So far, language ideology has typically been associated with themacro level. Therefore, in order to illustrate how language ideology operates at the
micro level in relation to interests and power, the chapter presents a case studyof the language maintenance of Sorbian in Lusatia, a region in Eastern Germany.

Exploring interests and power in language management

27

The remaining three chapters that constitute the first part of this book represent case studies of LM taking place at specific institutions. Petar Vuković draws on
LMT in his analysis of the work of the Council for the Standard Croatian Language
Norm. Established in 2005, the Council was disbanded only seven years later, following strong criticism coming from both experts and the general public alike. The
author explains the Council’s lack of power to influence the actual language use
by pointing out its disregard for simple LM and narrow focus on the organized LM,
without taking into account the ideological stances of its members or interests of
the language users.
The chapter by Jakub Kopecký presents the results of an analysis of the argumentation used in language consulting telephone interactions between language users
and language experts from the Language Consulting Center of the Czech Language
Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences. Drawing on LMT, Kopecký focuses on
the cases of disagreement and conflict, uncovering the underlying language ideologies and divergent interests of the parties involved in the interactions as well as themethods in which they resolve their disputes, all the while negotiating their power
relations, especially the Center’s authority.
The first part concludes with the chapter by Stephanie Rudwick in which theauthor applies LMT to investigate the interplay of interests and power in language
policy discussions and changes at Stellenbosch University in South Africa. Rudwick
analyzes the University’s highly polarizing and conflict-​riddled language politics,
concentrating on the discourses and the underlying language ideologies related to
the role of English, a widely desired academic lingua franca, as opposed to Afrikaans, which used to serve as the primary language of teaching and learning at the
University. The case is particularly worthy of consideration because, as the author
points out, it represents a successful example of bottom-​up LM.
Focusing on diverse interests and power relations of various actors involved
primarily in different stages of organized LM, the four chapters comprising thesecond part of this volume, entitled Minority languages and minoritized languages,
deal with complex issues concerning minority languages or minoritized languages
in different language polities in Central, Western, and Eastern Europe.
The chapter by Roland Marti complements the chapter by Kimura, as it details
the history and discusses the present state of LM of Lower Sorbian, a severely
endangered minority language in Eastern Germany, vis-​à-​vis Upper Sorbian, andGerman, the majority language. In particular, Marti focuses on organized LM ofLower Sorbian, initiated by the Upper Sorbian institutions, as well as on the impactof this top-​down LM on the LM of Lower Sorbian on part of its speakers, explainingthat Lower Sorbian has gone through the same stages of development as numerous
other minority languages.
In the next chapter, Ben Ó Ceallaigh considers the impact of macro-​level economic developments on Irish language policy between the years 2008 (marked by
the international economic crash and the beginning of the Great Recession) and2018. Based on policy analyses and ethnographic research in Gaeltacht (primarily
Irish-​
speaking) communities, the author discusses the influence of economic

28

Marek Nekula et al.

forces on Irish language vitality, demonstrating the detrimental impact that recent
disruptions have had on these areas, including increased unemployment and out-​
migration. Also examined are the effects of post-​2008 austerity measures on organized LM in Ireland and the substantial decrease in state support for the language.
It is argued that neoliberalism, the economic hegemony of the last several decades,
inherently conflicts with language revitalization.
Nadiya Kiss’s chapter introduces the key actors in organized LM in contemporary Ukraine, the power relations that hold between them, and the varied intereststhat motivate them. Making use of a range of materials, Kiss provides an overview
of language policy discussions and changes with regard to the use of Ukrainianand Russian in different domains of public life from the Euromaidan period up till
the most recent developments. The ongoing trend towards Ukrainization is shownas closely connected to the socio-​political situation in the country and the relatedchanges in language attitudes and language use. Concurrently, it is also linked tothe emergence of new problems related to the linguistic rights and needs of thenational minorities in Ukraine.
In the closing chapter of the second part of this volume, Solvita Burr allows
the reader to gain an insight into the language ideologies as well as interests andpower relations of individual actors who have played a role in an unresolved dispute over language use on house number signs in Latvia. Framing the issue interms of LMT, Burr examines the multi-​level LM cycles involved in the case of atrilingual house number sign and the related discussions on language use in Latvian linguistic landscape, pointing out that it is possible to distinguish two maininterest groups participating in these metalinguistic activities, namely, those thatare guided by nationalistic language ideology and those that advocate for therights of language minority groups.
The third part of the volume, entitled Foreign language policies, teaching andlearning, and use, considers the management of languages which, in the context
of their examination, are regarded as foreign. The four chapters that make up thispart bring together the general theme of this volume and such topics as language
policies, language teaching, language learning, and language use.
Lisa Fairbrother makes use of LMT in order to explore the intricate web of variously overlapping and intersecting LM processes occurring at different stages ofdevelopment of the ‘Teaching/​Learning English in English’ policy for high schools
in Japan. Fairbrother uncovers the complex interplay of a variety of pedagogical,
political, and economic interests as well as power relations between different
agents and actors, as they manifest themselves at each stage of the policy-​making
process from the initial conceptualization of the policy all the way to the post-​
implementation evaluation. The author points out that the formulation of thepolicy offers substantial leeway regarding its interpretation, which, in turn, allows
the variegated interests of the multiple agents and actors concerned to be met all
the while slowly changing the English language high school education in Japan in
the intended direction.

Exploring interests and power in language management

29

The study by Hiroyuki Nemoto adopts a mixed methods approach to find out
about Japanese university students’ investment in the management of theirinterests and power relations with a view to developing literacy and negotiating
identities throughout the translingual processes of their (re-​)socialization into academic and social contexts during and after study abroad. Nemoto applies LMT
to explicate the correlations between the students’ transcultural and translingual
development of literacy and identities; their negotiations of both linguistic andnon-​linguistic interests and social positionings in their individual networks ofpractice and communities of practice; and their engagement in multidirectionaland contextually situated practices through their socialization into the study
abroad and the post-​study abroad contexts.
The ensuing chapter is closely related to the chapters included in the second
part of the volume, dealing with minority languages and minoritized languages.
Vít Dovalil examines the interests and power relations of institutional social actorsthat partake in the metalinguistic discourses regarding the position of Germanin the Czech Republic at the macro level. Dovalil presents both quantitative datathat illustrate the situation of German in the country and the results from an
LMT-​based analysis of organized management activities carried out by different
institutions that mostly feel dissatisfied with the current situation and strive
to strengthen the position of German in the country, both as a foreign and as aminority language with respect to its tutored acquisition. Based on the analysis of
the metalinguistic behavior of the individual actors, the author categorizes them interms of power, positions them within social networks, identifies the interests that
motivate their behavior, and explains the failure of their heretofore efforts by thedisparity between the macro and micro levels.
Authored by Chikako Ketcham, the final chapter of the third part of the bookinvestigates how and why foreigners employed as white-​collar workers in Japan use
the Japanese language at their workplace. Ketcham argues that the non-​Japanesebusiness people use Japanese instead of English and use Japanese in a particular
way with a view to further their own interests, irrespective of the language policyof the company that they work for or the Japanese sociocultural norms, generating thereby new power relations. Making use of LMT, the author distinguishes
three domains of interests that seem to govern the non-​Japanese business people’s
choice of Japanese language and specific Japanese language use in their workplace: (1) time efficiency and other work-​related goals, (2) development of open
communication with Japanese colleagues, and (3) fostering of in-​group solidarity.
In lieu of an Epilogue, the volume concludes with a paper by Björn Jernudd,
one of the founders of the LMT. Referring to sociolinguistic and communication
theories, Jernudd offers his observations and questions with regard to the topic ofpower in both simple and organized LM.

30

Marek Nekula et al.

6 C oncluding remarks and future directions
As we can see in this volume, the study of interests and power constitutes anessential component of LM research and has always been present within it. We see
the innovation of this volume in the fact that both areas—​interests and power—​are
not analyzed separately, but are decidedly related to each other and—​also considering the phases of the LM process—​discussed in relation to their interplay.
As far as (linguistic) interests are concerned, we show that these are rationalized
by language ideologies, argued as seemingly objective, and thus also legitimized
and enforced or delegitimized and prevented. In this way, we also establish thelink between interests and power, which serves to mobilize in the pursuit of anagenda. This mobilization gives power to its protagonists, whereby general social
norms are transferred to or negotiated through language norms and their underlying language ideologies. The volume shows—​albeit in different elaborations in
the contributions—​the role of actors in the assertion of linguistic interests andrelates this to an actor typology that typifies the derivation of their power. However, interests and power are always understood as processual variables of discursive and non-​discursive actions. By staking out and spelling out these connections
and interplays, we believe we have brought the discussion forward through thisvolume.
Yet much more remains to be done. We can conclude here that focusing on
interests and power in all examinations of LM is desirable, but we should also
call for more work, particularly of the theoretical sort, which makes explicit to agreater degree the benefits of using the LM approach for studying the relationships
between language issues, power, and interests in general. In this volume, we havetraced the linkage of interests and power established by language ideologies, withrecourse to LMT, through a series of case studies located both in different language
and cultural spaces in Europe, Asia, and Africa, and in different domains of organized LM. In doing so, we have demonstrated the relevance of both linking thesecategories and LMT to LPP, which deals, for example, with minority languages,
foreign language acquisition, or language consulting.
Finally, it should be pointed out that there have been many disciplinary paths
to the study of LM, and the exploration and integration of these remains an important goal. Power management is elucidated in this volume as a type of LM which
integrates power into the interpretation of LM processes, but the question of how
it is linked to the conventional theories of discourse and power is only touched
upon. We do name them in this introduction, and they are also recalled in some of
the contributions, but they are not discussed in more detail theoretically or consistently related to each other. We are, however, on the way to doing so by addressing
the distinction between linguistic and non-​linguistic interests as well as theirlinkage to language ideologies and thus also the linkage of linguistic and social
norms, by focusing on organized LM, and by typologizing the power of actors,
thus moving into the realm of language politics and language conflict, which isopen to multidisciplinary study. Thus, in addition to linguistics, discourse analysis,

Exploring interests and power in language management31

and philosophy, sociology, political science, or social history are also involved.
The next steps thus seem to be clear: the integration of the broader context into
the analysis of the (linguistic, communicative, and socio-​economic) levels of LM
processes connected with gender-​equal, simplified, or minority language, as wellas the adoption of findings and theoretical approaches used within the disciplines
mentioned above to the LMT and vice versa. In this broader context, it is necessary to discuss not only how organized LM proceeds from the simple LM and its
generalization, but also how organized LM is carried out through simple LM andadapts itself within it. Thus, a closer focus on simple LM with regard to interestsand power that are linked to language ideology and thereby legitimized and enforced or delegitimized and prevented is to be made. Furthermore, the discussion
about the relationship between interests and motivation and goals is still pending.
The embedding of interests and power in a broader context, which is dealt within a multidisciplinary way, as well as the connection of LMT to it has already been
mentioned above. In closing, it is thus important to recall the relationship between
research and real-​life LM, also in consideration of our general disciplinary aims.
In the field of sociolinguistics, where issues such as inequality and discrimination have always been central, we find power in particular to be integrated into
the analysis. In studies of language acquisition and acculturation or of historicallanguage change, this may be less the case, though it is not entirely absent. We
therefore face similar questions here that we face in any type of study: In drawing
attention to power and interests, whose interests are we in fact representing or
promoting? Can we be neutral as researchers and analysts? Do we even want to
be? To what degree can we aim to have the results of our research translated into
management by the relevant actors in real life? These are questions which should
continue to provoke our inquiries.

References
Ammon, U. (2005) Standard und Variation: Norm, Autorität, Legitimation [Standard
and variation: Norm, authority, legitimation]. In L. Eichinger & W. Kallmeyer(eds) Standardvariation. Wie viel Variation verträgt die deutsche Sprache? [Variation of Standard: How much Variation is Possible in German?]. Berlin,
New York: De Gruyter, 28–​40.
Anderson, B. (1991 [1988]) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin andSpread of Nationalism. 2nd edition. London, New York: Verso Books.
Baldauf, R. B. (2006) Rearticulating the case for micro language planning in alanguage ecology context. Current Issues in Language Planning 7 (2–​3), 147–​170.
Bell, D. A. (1980) Brown v. board of education and the interest-​convergence
dilemma. Harvard Law Review 93 (3), 518–​533.
Bermel, N. (2007) Linguistic Authority, Language Ideology, and Metaphor: The Czech
Orthography Wars. Berlin, New York: De Gruyter.

32

Marek Nekula et al.

Bhabha, H. K. (ed) (2008 [1990]) Nation and Narration. London, New York: Routledge.
Blahak, B. (2015) Franz Kafkas Literatursprache: Deutsch im Kontext des Prager
Multilingualismus [Franz Kafka’s Literary Language: German in Context of
Prague Multilingualism]. Cologne, Weimar, Vienna: Böhlau.
Bourdieu, P. (1991) Language and Symbolic Power. Translated by G. Raymond and
M. Adamson. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Busch, B. (2017) Mehrsprachigkeit [Multilingualism]. 2nd edition. Vienna: Facultas.
Cooper, R. L. (1989) Language Planning and Social Change. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Coulmas, F. (2005) Changing language regimes in globalizing environments. International Journal of Sociology of Language 175/​176, 3–​15.
Dovalil, V. (2013) Zur Auffassung der Standardvarietät als Prozess und Produkt vonSprachmanagement [On standard variety as process and product of language
management]. In J. Hagemann, W. P. Klein & S. Staffeldt (eds) Pragmatischer
Standard [Pragmatic Standard]. Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag, 163–​176.
Fairbrother, L. (2015) The management of language and power in interculturalcontact situations in Japan. International Journal of the Sociology of Language
232, 59–​78.
Fairbrother, L., Nekvapil, J. & Sloboda, M. (eds) (2018) The Language Management
Approach: A Focus on Research Methodology. Berlin: Peter Lang.
Fairclough, N. (1989) Language and Power. London: Longman.
Fenton-​Smith, B. & Gurney, L. (2016) Actors and agency in academic language
policy and planning. Current Issues in Language Planning 17 (1), 72–​87.
Foucault, M. (1984) The order of discourse. In M. J. Shapiro (ed) Language and Politics. Oxford: Blackwell, 108–​138.
Gellner, E. (2006 [1983]) Nations and Nationalism. Introduced by J. Breuilly.
Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Haugen, E. (2013 [1966]) Language Conflict and Language Planning: The Case ofModern Norwegian. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Hroch, M. (2015) European Nations: Explaining Their Formation. Translated by
K. Graham. New York: Verso Books.
Jernudd, B. H. & Neustupný, J. V. (1987) Language planning: For whom? In
L. Laforge (ed) Actes du Colloque international sur l’aménagement linguistique /​Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Language Planning. Québec: Les
Presses de l’Université Laval, 69–​84.
Kimura, G. C. (2014) Language management as a cyclical process: A case study on
prohibiting Sorbian in the workplace. Slovo a slovesnost 75 (4), 255–​270.
Kimura, G. C. (2020) The bridging role of the researcher between different levelsof language management: The case of a research project at the German-​PolishExploring interests and power in language management

33

border. In G. C. Kimura & L. Fairbrother (eds) A Language Management Approach to Language Problems: Integrating Macro and Micro Dimensions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 237–​253.
Kimura, G. C. & Fairbrother, L. (eds) (2020) A Language Management Approach toLanguage Problems: Integrating Macro and Micro Dimensions. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Lanstyák, I. & Szabómihály, G. (2009) Hungarian in Slovakia: Language management in a bilingual minority community. In J. Nekvapil & T. Sherman (eds)
Language Management in Contact Situations: Perspectives from Three Continents.
Frankfurt on the Main: Peter Lang, 49–​73.
Linke, A. (1996) Sprachkultur und Bürgertum [Language Culture and Bourgeoisie].
Stuttgart: Metzler.
Marriott, H. & Nekvapil, J. (eds) (2012) Language Management Approach: Probing
the Concept of “Noting”. Special issue of Journal of Asian Pacific Communication
22 (2), 155–​317.
Marti, R. (1993) Slovakisch und Čechisch vs. Čechoslovakisch, Serbokroatisch vs.
Serbisch und Kroatisch [Slovak and Czech vs. Czechoslovak, Serbocroatian vs.
Serbian and Croatian]. In K. Gutschmidt, H. Keipert & H. Rothe (eds) SlavistischeStudien zum XI. Slavistenkongress in Pressburg/​Bratislava [Slavic Studies at the
9th Slavic Congress in Bratislava]. Cologne, Vienna: Böhlau, 289–​315.
Nekula, M. (2003) Franz Kafkas Sprachen: „…in einem Stockwerk des innern
babylonischen Turmes…“ [Franz Kafka’s Languages: “…in one Floor of the Babylonian Tower…”]. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Nekula, M. (2016) Franz Kafka and His Prague Contexts: Studies in Language andLiterature. Prague: Karolinum.
Nekvapil, J. & Sherman, T. (eds) (2009) Language Management in Contact Situations: Perspectives from Three Continents. Frankfurt on the Main: Peter Lang.
Nekvapil, J. & Sherman, T. (2013) Language ideologies and linguistic practices: Thecase of multinational companies in Central Europe. In E. Barát, P. Studer &J. Nekvapil (eds) Ideological Conceptualizations of Language: Discourses of Linguistic Diversity. Frankfurt on the Main: Peter Lang, 85–​117.
Neustupný, J. V. (2002) Language and power into the 21st century. International
Conference on Language and Empowerment, Malaysian Association of Modern
Languages, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, April 11–​13, 2002. On WWW at http://​lan​
guag​eman​agem​ent.ff.cuni.cz/​bibli​ogra​phy.
Neustupný, J. V. (2004) Power of Language across National Boundaries: The Caseof Tertiary Education. Essen: University of Duisburg-​Essen, LAUD Linguistic
Agency.
Raos, V. (2015) Linguistic landscapes in EU member states: Politics of visibility andpresence. In S. Seubert & F. van Waarden (eds) Being a Citizen in Europe: Insights
and Lessons from the Open Conference. Zagreb: EU, 245–​268.

34

Marek Nekula et al.

Rudwick, S. (2018) The struggle to promote an African language at a South African
university: A language management perspective. In L. Fairbrother, J. Nekvapil& M. Sloboda (eds) The Language Management Approach: A Focus on Research
Methodology. Berlin: Peter Lang, 157–​184.
Saruhashi, J. (2018) Personal empowerment through language management. In
L. Fairbrother, J. Nekvapil & M. Sloboda (eds) The Language Management Approach: A Focus on Research Methodology. Berlin: Peter Lang, 231–​258.
Sherman, T. (2009) Managing hegemony: Native English speakers in the Czech
Republic. In J. Nekvapil & T. Sherman (eds) Language Management in Contact
Situations: Perspectives from Three Continents. Frankfurt on the Main: Peter
Lang, 75–​96.
Sloboda, M. (2009) A language management approach to language maintenanceand shift: A study from post-​Soviet Belarus. In J. Nekvapil & T. Sherman (eds)
Language Management in Contact Situations: Perspectives from Three Continents.
Frankfurt on the Main: Peter Lang, 15–​47.
Sloboda, M. (2020) Demarcating the space for multilingualism: On the workings of
ethnic interests in a ‘civic nation’. Working Papers in Language Management. On
WWW at http://​lan​guag​eman​agem​ent.ff.cuni.cz/​bibli​ogra​phy.
Weinstein, B. (1987) Language planning and interests. In L. Laforge (ed) Actes duColloque international sur l’aménagement linguistique /​ Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Language Planning. Québec: Les Presses de l’Université
Laval, 33–​58.
Zahra, T. (2010) Imagined noncommunities: National indifference as a category ofanalysis. Slavic Review 69 (1), 93–​119.
Zhao, S. (2011) Actors in language planning. In E. Hinkel (ed) Handbook of Researchin Second Language Teaching and Learning. Vol. 2. New York, London: Routledge,
905–​923.
Zhao, S. & Baldauf, R. B. (2012) Individual agency in language planning: Chinese
script reform as a case study. Language Problems & Language Planning 36 (1),
1–​24.

Part I
Language ideologies

Goro Christoph Kimura

Why and how ideology matters for Language
Management Theory
Abstract Interests and power have been issues for Language Management Theory (LMT)
as important, even unavoidable factors that motivate and influence language management, but it is not clear how deeply these concepts are integrated in the theory. Recent
promising attempts to link language ideology (LI) with LMT seem to pay due attention
to the social context in which management processes occur. So far, however, LI has been
associated more with the macro level. In this chapter, LI is presented theoretically andempirically as a concept relevant at the micro level as well. The case demonstrating the
micro-​level operation of LI is drawn from the Sorbian region in Eastern Germany, where
the author has conducted fieldwork. The chapter concludes that, in order for the analysis
of interests and power to take the place it deserves in LMT, LI has to be considered as a
key ingredient in the LMT process, relevant both to macro and micro processes.
Keywords interests, power, language ideology, Sorbian

1 H
 ow interests and power relate to language andlanguage management
This chapter is intended as a review of the current state of research combining
Language Management Theory (LMT) and language ideology (LI), aiming to serve
as a basis for further developing and deepening this connection. First, the relationship of interests and power to language and their consideration in LMT is
discussed. Then, the concept of LI is presented, and the connection between LI and
LMT is examined. After discussing the theoretical side, a case study of the micro-​level operation of LI is presented in which the function of LI in relation to interestsand power is analyzed.
Language is sometimes regarded as a tool that can be used freely by eachspeaker; however, it is not merely a tool in the hands of individuals, but a social
construct in the sense that it becomes a social reality through the accumulation of
its use between people. At least two aspects must be considered when language isunderstood this way: the first is the impossibility of neutrality regarding language,
and the second is the intersubjectivity of language. Wee (2011) illustrates the first
aspect clearly as follows:
Language differs from practices pertaining to religion, diet, or dress in that it isunavoidable. Unlike other cultural practices, it is simply impossible in most, if not all,situations to avoid the use of a specific language, since some form of communication

38

Goro Christoph Kimura
is necessary if the participating individuals or communities are to successfully coordinate their actions. […] [Hence, rather than attempting to realize an unlikely stateof linguistic neutrality, the goal is to acknowledge and foreground the many different
interests that are at stake and which need to be negotiated. This alternative would
have the advantage of foregrounding the fact that language is always inextricablyintertwined with potentially conflicting interests, and that compromises are often necessary in a plural society. (Wee 2011: 15, 17; italics in the original, underline by GCK)

The important point here is the mention of interests. Even if the choice of a languageor language variety is perceived as natural in certain contexts, there are interests
behind this choice. For example, the use of a standard variety was fostered to serve
the unity of a nation, and now the promotion of English is serving, among others, theglobalizing economy. Sometimes, the interests are shared by the vast majority andare therefore not overtly contested, but this does not mean that there are no interests
involved.
The second aspect is described as follows:[L]‌anguage is ultimately a semiotic resource whose properties in the context of any localized situation are intersubjectively negotiated. […] [T]he fact that they are intersubjectively negotiated means that any control over them is beyond the reach of any single
individual or community, however powerful. (Wee 2011: 163)

Here we deal with the matter of power. In contrast to physical power, which is to aconsiderable degree based on the physical conditions of individuals or armed forces,
language and linguistic power function in the relations between people. Power is
not a static attribute of certain speakers by which they control others independentlyof the context, but an aspect of interaction and results from negotiation between
participants in concrete situations.
These two aspects, therefore, are basic characteristics of all language usage. Due tothis relevance of interests and power to language and their negotiated character, theseconcepts have a special affinity with and significance for LMT, which is concernedwith metalinguistic processes.
Indeed, LMT has dealt with interests ever since its inception. Jernudd andNeustupný (1987: 72) argued that a neutral language system free from interests is
impossible, connecting interests to the management process:Each language management process is connected with multiple interests of particularsocial groups or individuals. A full analysis of different interests is necessary. (Jernudd& Neustupný 1987: 82)

The concern with power was added to LMT later (see the introduction to thisvolume). The most detailed account on power in LMT is given by Neustupný (2002),
who stresses the importance of thinking about power in relation to language,
and points out the possibility of analyzing power management at the micro level
through the process model of LMT: deviation from norms, noting, evaluation,

Why and how ideology matters for LMT

39

adjustment design, and implementation.1 He defines interests and power in thefollowing way:
Interests are aspirations for a certain state of affairs that is favourable to the subject. Power operates on interests. Power is the capacity to implement one’s interests.
(Neustupný 2002: 4)

Further explanations of LMT have included this issue, as the following
example shows:A fourth feature [of LMT] is the insistence on the recognition of the multiplicity ofinterests within a community. […] Also, the capacity to implement one’s interests, inother words power, are subject to variation, and no language management system canoverlook this fact. (Neustupný & Nekvapil 2003: 186)

In concrete research, the matter of interests and power has been taken up in micro-​level (e.g., Fairbrother 2015) as well as macro-​level studies (e.g., Dovalil 2015). On
the other hand, it must be noted that interests and power are invisible in the process models of LMT, so these aspects can be easily overlooked. There seems to bea lack of a clear concept and methodology to deal with interests and power in the
LMT process. It is fair, then, to raise the question of how deeply these concepts arereally integrated in the theory.

2 Language ideology as an approach to interestsand power2This question was previously formulated by Yamada (1999 [2006]), who discussed
the relation of LMT to interests and power. According to Yamada, there is aproblem with the process model of LMT beginning with deviation from norms,
which seems to presuppose that the involved parties share norms that existed
prior to the specific situation. Yamada prompts us to focus our attention on thepoliticized, specific interactions from the perspective of ethnomethodology, which
focuses on the jointly constructed “objective reality” within individual situations:
The problem with the “management process” is that it does not actively theorize that
“norms” themselves are a political device that reproduce common knowledge deemed
to be self-​evident, and that the adjustment of language problems within specific1

2

A post-​implementation stage (feedback/​verification) was proposed later (see Kimura
2014, 2020). See also the explanation of the management process on the LMT website
at http://​lan​guag​eman​agem​ent.ff.cuni.cz/​en/​proc​ess. Kimura and Fairbrother (2020)
argue for explicitly showing the pre-​management stage of “(deviation from) norms”
in the process model.
This and the following section incorporate the description of LI in relation to LMT
presented in Kimura (2011, 2017).

40

Goro Christoph Kimurainteractions is itself the political stage where power struggles occur. (Yamada 1999: 67;
2006: 38, translation by GCK).

As Yamada points out, it is valid to analyze the negotiation of power or power
management within specific situations, given that power within language activity
actually operates in micro-​level interactions. However, when we talk about norm
negotiations, we must be aware that norms are not negotiated from scratch in eachand every interaction. Yamada seems to presuppose that only contexts traceable
on the surface are relevant for each situation, but the premise of LMT, unlike strict
ethnomethodology, is that it also considers mental factors beneath the surface.
Jernudd has pointed out that “language management is inevitably constrained by
the socioeconomic and political state of affairs in a speech community. It is important to be very clear about this constraint” (Jernudd 2001: 5). As such, it is essential
to keep such constraints in mind when examining the negotiation of norms. But
how should one go about this?
A valid concept for considering these constraints is LI, which mainly developed in linguistic anthropology but is becoming influential in sociolinguistics andrelated fields as well. In a classical definition, Silverstein (1979: 193) defines LI as“sets of beliefs about language articulated by the users as a rationalization or justification of perceived structure and use.” In a later definition, LI is conceived to be “amediating link between social forms and forms of talk” (Woolard 1998: 3).
LI starts from the basic insight that we all have value judgments about language,
but LI as used in linguistic anthropology is not just another name for “language
attitude” or “view of language.” First, it assumes that evaluations of language are
not completely different from situation to situation, but that there are recurrent
patterns shared within a definite range of people. It is difficult to envisage thatknowledge and beliefs would be entirely different between individuals; therefore,
if similar patterns are observed in different individuals in different scenarios, we
can hypothesize that a LI is at work. A second characteristic of LI is its link tosocial structure, interests, and power, which is particularly relevant to this chapter.
This does not mean that LI attempts to explain language use directly from social
structures and the like; rather, LI is critical towards trying to explain language use
as a mere “reflection” of social factors. LI aims to point out that social forms do
not directly produce forms of talk. As such, LI can be regarded as an interpretative
filter with its own dynamism, mediating between society (in general) and concrete
language usage. It operates in two directions, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: The operation of language ideology (LI)Why and how ideology matters for LMT

41

De Bres (2013) outlines the key features of LI, and three out of the twelve points
she lists concern interests and power. First, LIs are “normative with a purpose” (deBres 2013: 59), as they are tied to the interests of a particular social position. Second,“given their normative nature and relationship to interests, language ideologies
always relate to power relations within society” (de Bres 2013: 59; italics in the original). Third, “language ideologies are viewed here not as a static system of normative
beliefs, but rather as a strategic resource that individuals can employ to position andreinforce their own interests” (de Bres 2013: 60). These features suggest that LI can be
useful in understanding how interests and power operate in language management.

3 I ntegrating LI into LMT
Let us now consider the connection of LI to LMT. Neustupný (e.g., 1993, 2002) used
the term “ideology” repeatedly in his papers. In one relatively early example, hededicates an entire paragraph to it. In a paper on language purism, he distinguishes
three types of purism (Neustupný 1989: 211–​212, italics in the original):
1.	 linguistic interaction: “what speakers actually do in discourse”
2.	 metalinguistic idiom: “ways of communicating about certain linguistic processes”
3.	 ideology: “a relatively independent system of thought about language with particular political objectives to be achieved.” Ideologies are thought to “accompany the correction processes,” e.g., nationalist ideology.
This understanding of ideology is more specific and limited in scope than LI
as described above, as the addition of “with particular political objectives to beachieved” indicates. In linguistic anthropology, LI is conceived as a more essential,
omnipresent aspect of human language activities, or to use Neustupný’s words,“a relatively independent system of thought about language” that can be deduced
from “linguistic interactions” as well as “metalinguistic idioms” that serve as strategic resources (Neustupný 1989: 212).
Later, Kimura (2001) was the first to transfer the concept of LI from linguistic
anthropology to LMT, proposing that the analysis of situations in which language
management occurs should pay attention to the ideological circumstances. Kimura(2001: 27) summarized the discussion as follows:
Ideologies can be abstracted from texts as well as concrete situations. In my opinion
it is most important to distinguish ideology as a structured and to a certain degree
durable dimension in its own right from concrete language usage. In other words,
to seek factors that can be reduced neither to individual situations nor to social
structures.3

3

Original: So können Ideologien sowohl von Texten als auch von konkreten
Situationen abstrahiert werden. M.E. kommt es vor allem darauf an, die Ideologie
als strukturierte und einigermaßen dauerhafte eigene Dimension von den einzelnen
Sprachhandlungen zu trennen, mit anderen Worten, nach Faktoren zu suchen,42

Goro Christoph Kimura

Recently, the term has come to be used in LMT-​based research, especially among
Central European researchers (Sherman 2020), but usually without defining or
discussing the term itself. The term “norm system” (Sloboda 2009) has also beenused to denote normative orientations in a similar sense to LI. Though it cannot
be stressed enough that the notion of language management by Spolsky (2004,2009) is different from LMT (Fairbrother & Kimura 2020: 2, 8–​10), it is important
to note that Spolsky (2004) also included ideology as a basic concept in his model:
The members of a speech community share also a general set of beliefs about appropriate language practices, sometimes forming a consensual ideology, assigning values
and prestige to various aspects of the language varieties used in it. These beliefs bothderive from and influence practices. They can be a basis for language management ora management policy can be intended to confirm or modify them. (Spolsky 2004: 14)

A more focused discussion on the role of LI in LMT was provided by Kimura(2011) (for the main points see Kimura 2017), who examined the controversy over“prohibiting” Sorbian in a workplace in the Sorbian region.4 His findings showed
how shared language ideologies can act as constraints, but also as resources in theprocess of negotiating norms. According to him, norms would not work without
reference to LIs accepted by the participants. He concluded that it can be assumed
that LI can essentially help clarify why such management processes arise, while
investigating language management can help to explore how LIs operate.
Similarly, Nekvapil and Sherman (2013: 86) argued:that language ideologies represent a normative orientation for the speakers, andin serving as the basis for norms or expectations for communicative behavior, theideologies guide, influence or underlie what can be noticed as a deviation from thenorm, what can be evaluated (negatively, positively or otherwise) and so forth, that is,they guide management processes.

In accordance with Kimura (2011, 2017), they state that LIs “serve as the basis forparticular norms” (Nekvapil & Sherman 2013: 90). Lanstyák (2016) summarizes
the main characteristics of the concept of LI and provides a comprehensive list ofas many as 237 types of ideologies, which can help with orientation in researchconcerning LI.
Establishing LI, a concept linking the social background to the specific site oflanguage management, as an item for investigation no doubt facilitates “more positive theorization” (to use Yamada’s phrase) regarding the discussion surrounding
norms and power relations. LIs undoubtedly show potential as a way to understand what becomes a norm, what is deemed a deviation in a specific situation, andin what ways the management process is performed.

4

die weder auf die einzelnen Situationen noch auf die sozialen Strukturen zu
reduzieren sind.
For the details and processes of the case discussed here, see Kimura (2014).

Why and how ideology matters for LMT

43

Recent developments in linking LI and LMT have led to an acknowledgmentof a deeper influence of LI in language management processes than previously
suggested. While previous mentions of LI in LMT have included “ideology” asa concept in institutional or organized management (Nekvapil 2009: 6; Barát,
Studer & Nekvapil 2013: 3), Nekvapil and Sherman (2013: 86) argued that “anygiven setting contains a constellation of language ideologies which then influenceobservable practices of language management,” including the fact that LIs underlie/​guide not only organized management but also simple management (Nekvapil& Sherman 2013: 92; see also Lanstyák 2016: 5). Lanstyák (2014: 332) also points
out that “even minor corrections may be motivated by these factors, e.g., themere fact that the speaker corrects a language form which does not cause misunderstanding or is not more difficult to understand than the correct one, may be
influenced by his/​her ideologies.” The first example of simple correction from the
LMT website below,5 which shows a correction from common Czech to standard
Czech form (underlined by GCK), can be interpreted in terms of ideology in thesense that standard LI connecting standard language and formal public speech is
involved here.
Example 1
MODERÁTOR: témata, o kterých bude dnes řeč, možná poznáte už podle jmen pánů,který-​ kteří přijali dnešní pozvání.
[ANCHOR: the topics which will be discussed today you may recognize just from thenames of the gentlemen who-​[non-​standard form] who [standard form] accepted
today's invitation.]

This broader awareness of LI in LMT is in line with the concept in linguistic anthropology, which is thought of as significant in terms of the link between the micro
and macro levels. In his consideration of the concept of LI, Woolard (1998: 27)
posits that LIs are expected to be helpful in this sense:[I]‌t allows us to relate the microculture of communicative action to political economic
considerations of power and social inequality, to confront macrosocial constraints on
language behavior, and to connect discourse with lived experiences.

Gal (1998: 319) also perceives LI as allowing for integrative consideration of thecircumstances conventionally regarded as a different level of social phenomena:
Because social organizations and institutions that differ significantly in size, spatial
dispersion, and duration (consider, for instance, the differences between states, NGOs,
schools, political movements, professional societies, town meetings, friendships, andmarket interactions) can all nevertheless be constituted around cultural principles
about the relation of language to social life, while also enacting implicit understandings

5

http://​lan​guag​eman​agem​ent.ff.cuni.cz/​en/​com​plex​ity. Accessed March 21, 2020.

44

Goro Christoph Kimuraof such a relation, a focus on language ideologies can enable analyses to range acrosssocial arrangements of different extent and temporality. By starting with linguistic
ideologies, one can highlight unexpected links, contestations, and contradictions
among such organizations, thereby bringing them within a single theoretical purview.

Acknowledging the omnipresence of LI in language management processes also
has consequences for the understanding of simple and organized management.
LI was sometimes perceived to be more relevant in organized management thansimple management, as the following ­example shows:organized management can be characterized by the following features: […]d. Theorizing and ideologies are at play to a greater degree and more explicitly(Nekvapil 2012: 167; Nekvapil & Sherman 2015: 8; Nekvapil 2016: 15)

It is understandable that ideologies would usually be more explicit in organizedmanagement, but the degree of overtness does not necessarily correspond to thedegree at which LIs are actually operating. As mentioned above, LI has been understood as manifested not only by direct verbalization but also through interactions.
Indeed, it can be argued that the ideologies that are not overtly discussed are thetruly dominant ones (Lanstyák 2016: 6). The general description of LMT in relation
to LI should therefore be modified to:
LMT includes “ideology” as a concept in the institutional or organized as well as
simple management of linguistic practice.

This kind of deep concern with LI urges the analyzer to view various management
processes in its wider social context, involving interests and power.

4 A case of the micro-​level operation of language
ideology: Maintenance of SorbianThus far, this chapter has dealt with LI as a conceptual framework to analyze themetalinguistic environment of language management processes. Before closing
the chapter, there is still the question of how LI relates to interests and power inconcrete cases. This can be divided in two questions. First, how are LIs sustained byand serve interests? Second, how does LI function to support or challenge power
relations? In search of the answer to these questions, I would like to present an
example of how LI, operating covertly at the micro level, can be linked to interestsand power. The example discussed here comes from Lusatia, a region in Eastern
Germany, where I conducted fieldwork on the language maintenance of Sorbian,a small Slavic language spoken there (on Sorbian in Germany see also Marti, thisvolume).
Sorbian has been particularly well preserved among Catholic Sorbs, althoughfollowing the Reformation more than 90% of Sorbs converted to Protestantism.
My research concerned the role of the Catholic Church in maintaining the Sorbian language (Kimura 2015), revealing the continuous efforts of Catholic priests

Why and how ideology matters for LMT

45

to promote the Sorbian language. One such example is the following excerpt froma preparation class for the Holy Communion, held in the Sorbian language by a
Sorbian priest, including among the Sorbian natives some pupils with German as
their first language (other examples are in Kimura 2015).
Example 2Priest:Anne:
Priest:A Anne?
Moja mać spinka, weil sie Nachtschicht hat.
Aha, ta je spała. To ja wěrju. […][Priest: And Anne?
Anne:	My mother sleeps, weil sie Nachtschicht hat [because she has towork at night].
Priest:Aha, she was sleeping. I believe that.]Anne is a pupil of Sorbian ancestry who speaks German at home. Here, she begins
to speak in Sorbian but then switches to German (underlined part). The priest
repeats the information and adds a comment in Sorbian. There seems to be nothing
special in this reaction by the priest, but it is actually an extraordinary act of management, unlikely to happen in social situations outside the church context. The
general communicative norm in the society in this region is that German is thedominant language, and when one speaks German, the other(s) has (have) toswitch to German as well. However, the priest here tries to switch back to Sorbian.
The language management process by the priest can be described as follows.
First, the use of German by the pupil is noted as a deviation from the specific norm
that, in this class, Sorbian is the language to be used. The adjustment took the formof switching back to Sorbian, implemented by repeating what was said in German
and continuing in Sorbian. After the class, the priest reviewed the occasion withthe following words directed at the author, implying the need to promote Anne’s
Sorbian skills in the class to compensate for the attitudes of her parents, who do
not speak Sorbian with her.
Example 3

Priest:	Anne pěnknje čita, ale dokelz staršej nje… to staj staršej wina. Wonaje mudra.
[Anne can read well, but the parents don’t… the parents are guilty.
She is clever.]
It would be misleading to understand the insisting on Sorbian as the language tobe used in the class as an individual act caused by the personal preference of thepriest. Instead, this is related to the ideology of the local Catholic Church, which
elevates Sorbian. The analysis of recurrent narratives and discourse patterns injournals, documents, and interviews (Kimura 2005) has detected an ideology thatappears in the list by Lanstyák (2016: 38) as “jazykový sakralizmus” (language assomething holy). This ideology holds that the use of a certain language has a special religious value.

46

Goro Christoph KimuraThis ideology is related to and supported by different interests. For the clergy
and church leaders, Sorbian is a distinctive identity marker that distinguishes
Catholic Sorbs from the secularized or Protestant Germans. The Sorbian language
is perceived as guarding the maintenance of the faith and perpetuating the influence of the Church. On the other hand, the ideology is supported by many laypeople as well, for whom maintaining the community network is part of theirsafety net (Kimura 2004). They even actively help to integrate linguistically peripheral members of the community, such as Anne in the example, by including themin popular events held in Sorbian and related to the Church (Kimura 2015).
With regard to power, it is obvious that the priest, as the teacher in this situation, can control the language to be used, and this role is accepted by Anne and herparents because of the above mentioned “holiness” of Sorbian, manifested in theextensive use of Sorbian in the Church (Kimura 2015).
In sum, with regard to the management process, LI as a mutually understoodand approved metalinguistic presupposition reflects interests and constitutes aresource of power negotiations surrounding norms within linguistic interaction,and it can be thought of as a prerequisite that participates in the creation of advantage (and disadvantage) for specific people and positions. Therefore, consideration of the LIs that are shared and recreated by the parties in an interaction canbe said to be a method to prevent us from overlooking the interest and power
constellations involved in seemingly self-​evident norms within the analysis oflanguage management.

5 C onclusions
In this chapter, we have first confirmed that interests and power are profoundly
related to language, and that LMT has good preconditions to tackle these issues.
As interests and power, however, are not sufficiently integrated in LMT conceptually, a full integration of LI into it would be useful. In order to grant the analysis ofinterests and power the place it deserves in LMT, LI must be conceived as relevant
to macro as well as micro processes. Finally, the case study showed how ideology
reflects interests and constitutes a resource of power negotiations.
Figure 2 illustrates the potential of ideologies operating in the process oflanguage management. While this chapter only discussed ideologies directly
related to language, language management is in fact embedded in wider communicative, sociocultural and sociopolitical/​economic behavior. Thus, ideologies onthese issues and its relation with language management should be considered aswell. This will be a task for further research.

Why and how ideology matters for LMT

47

Figure 2: Potentials of ideologies in the management process

References
Barát, E., Studer, P. & Nekvapil, J. (2013) Approaching the study of language use
and ideology: An introduction. In E. Barát, P. Studer & J. Nekvapil (eds) Ideological Conceptualizations of Language. Frankfurt on the Main: Peter Lang, 1–​8.
de Bres, J. (2013) Language ideologies for constructing inclusion and exclusion. In
E. Barát, P. Studer & J. Nekvapil (eds) Ideological Conceptualizations of Language.
Frankfurt on the Main: Peter Lang, 57–​83.
Dovalil, V. (2015) Language management theory as a basis for the dynamic concept
of EU language law. Current Issues in Language Planning 16 (4), 360–​377.
Fairbrother, L. (2015) The management of language and power in interculturalcontact situations in Japan. International Journal of the Sociology of Language
232, 59–​78.
Fairbrother, L. & Kimura, G. C. (2020) What is a language management approachto language problems and why do we need it? In G. C. Kimura & L. Fairbrother(eds) A Language Management Approach to Language Problems: Integrating
Macro and Micro Dimensions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–​28.
Gal, S. (1998) Multiplicity and contention among language ideologies: A commentary. In B. B. Schieffelin, K. A. Woolard & P. V. Kroskrity (eds) Language Ideologies. Practice and Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 317–​331.
Jernudd, B. H. (2001) Language management and language problems: Part 2.
Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 11 (1), 1–​8.
Jernudd, B. H. & Neustupný, J. V. (1987) Language planning: For whom? In
L. Laforge (ed) Actes du Colloque international sur l’aménagement linguistique /​Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Language Planning. Québec: Les
Presses de L’Université Laval, 69–​84.
Kimura, G. C. (2001) Intentionale Eingriffe in den Sprachgebrauch: Perspektiven
und Probleme einer umfassenden Theoriebildung [Conscious interventions
in language use: Perspectives and problems in forming a comprehensive
theory]. In S. Fiedler & Liu H. (eds) Studien zur Interlinguistik [Studies about

48

Goro Christoph KimuraInterlinguistics]. Praha: KAVA–​PECH, 19–​29. On WWW athttp://​www.lingv​
iko.net/​db/​01_​KIM​URA.htm#P85_​19​869. Accessed December 6, 2020.
Kimura, G. C. (2004) Junnō to jikoshuchō no aida de –​Sorubujin no seikatsusenryaku
e no shiten [Sorbian survival strategies between accommodation and resistance]. In Tōōshikenkyū [Journal of Eastern European Studies] 26, 107–​115.
Kimura, G. C. (2005) Gengo ni totte ‘jin’isei’ towa nanika: gengokōchiku to
gengoideorogī, Kerunōgo to Sorubugo o jirei toshite [What does ‘Artificiality’
Mean to Language? Case Studies of Cornish and Sorbian as Exemplars of
Language Construction and Language Ideology]. Tokyo: Sangensha.
Kimura, G. C. (2011) Watashitachi wa donoyōni gengo o kanri suru noka [Howdo we manage languages?] In H. Yamashita, M. Watanabe & H. Takada (eds)
Gengoishiki to shakai [Language Awareness and Society]. Tokyo: Sangensha,
61–​89.
Kimura G. C. (2014) Language management as a cyclical process: A case study on
prohibiting Sorbian in the workplace. Slovo a slovesnost 75, 255–​270.
Kimura, G. C. (2015) Spracherhalt als Prozess: Elemente des kirchlichen
Sprachmanagements bei den katholischen Sorben [Language maintenance asa process: Elements of Sorbian language management in the Catholic church].
International Journal of the Sociology of Language 232, 13–​32. English version
on WWW at http://​lan​guag​eman​agem​ent.ff.cuni.cz/​sys​tem/​files/​docume​nts/​
Kim​ura%282​015%29Lan​guag​_​mai​nten​ance​_​as_​proc​ess.pdf. Accessed December
6, 2020.
Kimura, G. C. (2017) The role of language ideology in norm negotiation. Working
Papers in Language Management 2. On WWW at http://​lan​guag​eman​agem​ent.
ff.cuni.cz/​sys​tem/​files/​docume​nts/​wplm-​02_​kim​ura.pdf. Accessed December
6, 2020.
Kimura, G. C. (2020) The bridging role of the researcher between different levelsof language management: The case of a research project at the German-​Polish border. In G. C. Kimura & L. Fairbrother (eds) A Language Management
Approach to Language Problems: Integrating Macro and Micro Dimensions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 237–​253.
Kimura, G. C. & Fairbrother, L. (2020) Reconsidering the language management approach in light of the micro-​macro continuum. In G. C. Kimura & L. Fairbrother(eds) A Language Management Approach to Language Problems: Integrating
Macro and Micro Dimensions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 255–​267.
Lanstyák, I. (2014) On the process of language problem management. Slovo aslovesnost 75 (4), 325–​351.
Lanstyák, I. (2016) Jazykové ideológie (všeobecné otázky a glosár) [Language
ideologies (general issues and a glossary)]. Working Papers in Language Management 1 (revised in 2017). On WWW at: http://​lan​guag​eman​agem​ent.ff.cuni.
cz/​sys​tem/​files/​docume​nts/​wplm-​01_​l​anst​yak.pdf.

Why and how ideology matters for LMT

49

Nekvapil, J. (2009) The integrative potential of language management theory.
In J. Nekvapil & T. Sherman (eds) Language Management in Contact Situations: Perspectives from Three Continents. Frankfurt on the Main: Peter Lang,
1–​11.
Nekvapil, J. (2012) Some thoughts on “noting” in Language Management Theory
and beyond. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 22 (2), 160–​173.
Nekvapil, J. (2016) Language Management Theory as one approach in Language
Policy and Planning. Current Issues in Language Planning 17 (1), 11–​22.
Nekvapil, J. & Sherman, T. (2013) Language ideologies and linguistic practice: Thecase of multinational companies in Central Europe. In E. Barát, P. Studer &J. Nekvapil (eds) Ideological Conceptualizations of Language: Discourses of Linguistic Diversity. Frankfurt on the Main: Peter Lang, 85–​117.
Nekvapil, J. & Sherman, T. (2015) An introduction: Language Management: Theory
in Language Policy and Planning. International Journal of the Sociology ofLanguage 232, 1–​12.
Neustupný, J. (1989) Language purism as a type of language correction. In
B. H. Jernudd & M. J. Shapiro (eds) The Politics of Language Purism. Berlin &New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 211–​223.
Neustupný, J. V. (1993) Language management for Romani in Central and Eastern
Europe. New Language Planning Newsletter 7 (4), 1–​6.
Neustupný, J. V. (2002) Language and power into the 21st century. A paper for theInternational Conference on Language and Empowerment, Malaysian Associationof Modern Languages, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, April 11–​13, 2002. On WWW
at http://​lan​guag​eman​agem​ent.ff.cuni.cz/​bibli​ogra​phy.
Neustupný, J. V. & Nekvapil, J. (2003) Language management in the Czech Republic.
Current Issues in Language Planning 4 (3–​4), 181–​366.
Sherman, T. (2020) Researching language management in Central Europe: Cultivation, social change and power. In G. C. Kimura & L. Fairbrother (eds) A
Language Management Approach to Language Problems: Integrating Macro andMicro Dimensions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 69–​88.
Silverstein, M. (1979) Language structure and linguistic ideology. In P. R. Clyne,
W. F. Hanks & C. L. Hofbauer (eds) The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic
Units and Levels. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 193–​247.
Sloboda, M. (2009) A language management approach to language maintenance and language shift: A study from post-​Soviet Belarus. In J. Nekvapil &T. Sherman (eds) Language Management in Contact Situations: Perspectives fromThree Continents. Frankfurt on the Main: Peter Lang, 15–​47.
Spolsky, B. (2004) Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spolsky, B. (2009) Language Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wee, L. (2011) Language without Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

50

Goro Christoph Kimura

Woolard, K. (1998) Introduction. Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In B. B.
Schieffelin, K. A. Woolard & P. V. Kroskrity (eds) Language Ideologies: Practiceand Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3–​47.
Yamada, T. (1999) Esunomesodoroji kara mita ‘gengomondai’ [‘Language
problems’ seen from the viewpoint of ethnomethodology]. The Japan Journal of
Language and Society 2 (1), 59–​69. Reprinted in: H. Masiko (ed) (2006) Kotoba,
kenryoku, sabetsu: gengoken kara mita jōhōjakusha no kaihō [Language, Powerand Discrimination: The Contribution of Language Rights to the Liberation ofInformation-​Handicapped]. Tokyo: Sangensha, 23–​42.

Petar Vuković

Council for the Standard Croatian Language
Norm: The failure of ‘hard power’Abstract The Council for the Standard Croatian Language Norm was founded in 2005 by
the right-​wing conservative government as the highest body responsible for providing“systematic and professional care for the Croatian standard language.” Seven years later,
it was abolished as “unnecessary” by the left-​wing liberal government. In this chapter,the work of the Council is analyzed through the prism of Language Management Theory.
The analysis demonstrates that the Council neglected simple language management on
the micro level, which is recommended as point of departure of the organized language
management, in favor of the organized language management on the macro level tochange the praxis (and the accepted norms) on the micro level and refused to acknowledge both ideological stances and the particular interests of its most prominent members.
This resulted in the Council’s failure to exert any real influence on language use.
Keywords Council for the Standard Croatian Language Norm, organized language
management, language ideology, language norm, language use

1 I ntroduction
The Council for the Standard Croatian Language Norm worked as an advisory
expert group at the Ministry of Science, Education and Sports of the Republic of
Croatia from April 2005 to May 2012. It was composed of representatives of allacademic institutions in Croatia specializing in research of contemporary Standard
Croatian, with Radoslav Katičić serving as its president. The Council was founded
to deal with what can be broadly defined as the corpus and status planning of contemporary Standard Croatian,1 but on many occasions, as will be demonstrated

1

In the Decision on the Establishment and Appointment of Members of the Council
for the Standard Croatian Language Norm, adopted by Minister Dragan Primorac,
the Council was assigned the following tasks: “voditi sustavnu stručnu skrb za
hrvatski standardni jezik, raspraviti aktualne nedoumice i otvorena pitanja
hrvatskoga standardnog jezika, upozoravati na primjere nepoštovanja ustavne
odredbe o hrvatskom kao službenom jeziku u Republici Hrvatskoj, promicati
kulturu hrvatskoga standardnog jezika u pisanoj i govornoj komunikaciji,
voditi skrb o mjestu i ulozi hrvatskoga standardnog jezika s obzirom na proces
integracije Republike Hrvatske u Europsku uniju, donijeti rješenja u svezi s daljnjim
normiranjem hrvatskoga standardnog jezika, pratiti jezičnu problematiku i utvrditi
načela u pravopisnoj normi.” [to conduct systematic professional care for the52

Petar Vuković

later in the chapter, it transgressed the boundaries within which it was supposed
to work. Due to controversial recommendations and attitudes toward contemporary language use that some of its prominent members advocated, the Council was
exposed to the criticism of both professional linguists and the general educatedpublic (see, e.g., Langston & Peti Stantić 2011; Peti Stantić & Langston 2013: 142–​
149; Vuković 2016). The most important materials on the work of the Council were
published in a special edition of the journal Jezik [Language] 60 (2013), No. 2–​4.
In this chapter, the work of the Council will be analyzed through the prismof Language Management Theory (LMT), primarily with regard to what JiříV. Neustupný claimed about the role of power and interests in organized language
management. Neustupný recommended that all organized language management
be anchored in a simple one in order to limit the power of language policymakers
and empower the wider community of language users. In accordance with this,the analysis in this chapter will focus on the way the Council approached theinteraction between organized and simple language management. Neustupný also
believed that there is no disinterested and value-​free language management, so hethought it important that language policy makers openly acknowledge their ideological stances and particular interests. The analysis will therefore seek to answer
the question of how the Council acted with regard to this issue. It will be argued
that negligence in simple language management and unwillingness to see its own
biases substantially contributed to the failure of the Council to exert any real influence on contemporary language use in Croatia. The chapter ends with an attempt
to determine the place of the organized language management practiced by theCouncil in the diachronic typology of organized language management proposed
by Neustupný (2006).

2 P
 ower and interests in LMT
As is well known, the notion of “language problem” has a central place in LMT.
The term has already been used within the theory of language planning, but in that

Croatian standard language, to discuss current issues and open questions about
the Croatian standard language, to warn of failures to comply with the constitutional provision on Croatian as the official language of the Republic of Croatia, topromote the cultivation of the Croatian standard language in written and spoken
communication, to take care of the place and role of the Croatian standard languagewith regard to the process of integration of the Republic of Croatia into the European Union, to adopt solutions regarding further standardization of the Croatianstandard language, to follow current linguistic issues and to establish principles ofthe orthographic norm.] Source: Odluka o osnivanju i imenovanju članova Vijeća
za normu hrvatskoga standardnoga jezika [Decision on the Establishment and Appointment of Members of the Council for the Standard Croatian Language Norm],
Jezik 60: 58. (All translations are mine.)Council for the Standard Croatian Language Norm

53

context, it was interpreted primarily as a problem at the level of language code.
In LMT, it acquired a wider meaning. Neustupný (1978: 245), for example, suggest that “ ‘language problems’ can be reformulated as occurrences of the marker‘inadequate,’ which can be attached to certain features of communicative acts orfeatures of communicative systems.” In other words, the notion of a language
problem also covers the problems of speech, as well as communication and pragmatic problems. Moreover, in LMT, language problems are also perceived as firmly
integrated into the socioeconomic structures within which language communication flows. Accordingly, establishing the connections between language problems
and conflicting social and economic interests from which they grow is crucial in theanalysis. Finally, LMT is based on the assumption that language problems cannot
be solved by focusing solely on the dimension of communication. The socioeconomic problems associated with them must also be taken into consideration:
Hence the requirement of identification of socioeconomic determinants andconsequences of language problems by language planners and their active contribution to the solution of such problems. There is also the emerging requirement oflanguage planning, not merely through attempts to reform linguistic inventories, but
through the process of varying the socioeconomic determinants of language situations. (Neustupný 1983: 2)

An important innovation of LMT has also been its emphasis on microanalysis,
which is related to the insight that language management can be conducted individually, i.e., at the level of discourse, and in an organized way, i.e., with the participation of formalized social networks that strive to influence the language useof the wider community. The sources of all language problems, however, are in
the microsphere, at the level of discourse or meta-​discourse, if language problems
are produced discursively. They do not necessarily have to be classical communication misunderstandings, since perceived “inadequacies” can also be linked tosymbolic, socioeconomic or other functions of language.2 Faced with such “micro
problems,” communication participants seek solutions and engage in spontaneousinterventions, which normally proceed through the same stages as organizedlanguage management does. As Neustupný points out: “It is obvious that global
language reform and the process of the solution of communication problems of a2

In connection with this, Neustupný (2002: 435) writes: “Tak se stává, že mluvčínapříklad pociťují v interakci (promluvě) nejen to, že nemohou vyjádřit určitý obsah,nýbrž i to, že jazykem nedostatečně komunikují svou loajálnost k národu nebo že
jazyk vytváří sítě, které jsou pro mluvčího nepříznivé (např. v určité konkrétní
situaci angličtina socioekonomicky zvýhodňuje rodilé mluvčí angličtiny a státy
anglofonního typu).” [For example, it is possible for speakers to feel that in an interaction (discourse) they are not only unable to express certain content, but they also
insufficiently communicate by the language their loyalty to the nation, or that thelanguage creates networks unfavorable for the speaker (e.g., in a specific situation,
English socioeconomically privileges native speakers and Anglophone countries).]

54

Petar Vuković

single individual are processes of the same character. The differences are to a large
extent of a quantitative nature” (Neustupný 1983: 1). He therefore insists that every
instance of organized language management be linked to a simple one: “It is only
logical to require that all language planning must commence with the mappingof language problems in actual discourse, not with their reflections in attitudes
or statements of the personnel concerned. Conversely, it is clear that the ultimate
removal of a language problem hinges on its removal from actual discourse, a factof primary importance for the implementation of language planning” (Neustupný
1983: 2).3
However, even that is not enough to achieve “objectivity” in language management. In this regard, Neustupný writes: “I fully agree with G. Myrdal’s remarkthat recommendations cannot be made without commitment to value judgments.
Principles applied in language treatment are accepted differently by different
social groups and as long as social stratification exists no ‘objectivity’ in language
treatment is possible” (Neustupný 1970: 89). This is why Neustupný claims thatevery form of organized language management should fulfill a very specificrequirement: “It has become obvious today that any theory of language planningmust provide a full account of all political values involved in language planning
processes. The public must be made aware of what political aims are either intentionally or unintentionally supported […]. This should be not an optional addition
but one of the primary objectives of the discipline” (Neustupný 1983: 3).
It is precisely for this reason that LMT gives up the belief that language problems
necessarily concern the whole language community and that they can be solvedin a neutral way. Instead, Neustupný and Jernudd are convinced that it is always
necessary to ask for whose benefit language management is performed:
In other words, at what costs to what groups in society is a community-​wide language
planning possible? To whose benefit? When, how and why do groups within a society
assume different or even antagonistic positions vis-​à-​vis the processes of language
management? Since different groups normally possess different interests, it would
seem that a ‘neutral,’ ‘interest’-​free (or ‘value’-​less) system of language planning andof any language management also is impossible. (Jernudd & Neustupný 1987: 72)

3

Another of Neustupný’s succinct formulations of this problem can be cited: “Pokud
se týká organizovaného managementu, zdrojem povšimnutí jsou výzkumy jazykové
situace. Velmi často však k systematickým výzkumům nedochází a jazyková politika
se pak zakládá na neformálních povšimnutích personálu, který je s jazykovou
politikou nejúžeji spjat. Takovou situaci teorie jazykového managementu kritizuje.”[When it comes to organized management, the source of noting is the research of
the language situation. However, systematic research is often not conducted, so
language policy is based on informal noting of staff most closely related to language
policy. The theory of language management criticizes such a situation”] (Neustupný
2002: 437).

Council for the Standard Croatian Language Norm

55

As a result, the question of the solubility of language problems is answered
somewhat more realistically: while within language planning it was often believedthat all language problems can be solved in a neutral way, LMT is based on theconviction that some problems cannot be solved satisfactorily for all stakeholders,
and that some of them cannot be solved at all (see Neustupný 2002: 436).

3 Th
 e Council for the Standard Croatian Language Norm
As mentioned in the introduction, the Council for the Standard Croatian Language
Norm was a group of experts working as an advisory body at the Ministry of Science, Education and Sports of the Republic of Croatia from April 2005 to May 2012.
It was founded by Minister Dragan Primorac, appointed by the right-​wing conservative party Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ), and abolished by Minister Željko
Jovanović from the left-​wing liberal Social Democratic Party (SDP).4 The presidentof the Council was Radoslav Katičić, probably the most influential contemporary
Croatian linguist, and its members were representatives of all academic institutions
in Croatia specializing in the research of contemporary Standard Croatian.5

45This was not a coincidence, since right-​wing and left-​wing politicians (as well as
their voters) in Croatia have different attitudes toward centralized language regulation. Minister Primorac, for example, had an exceptionally high opinion of
the Council: “Znajte da u Hrvatskoj nema nikoga tko bi u pitanjima hrvatskog
standardnog jezika bio iznad Vijeća.” [You should know that the Council is theparamount authority in Croatia on questions of the Croatian standard language.](Jezik 60: 56), while Minister Jovanović, on the other hand, insisted there was noneed for the Council to continue the mission for which it was founded: “[N]‌ormom
hrvatskoga standardnog jezika [se] trebaju baviti institucije kojima je to zadatak.”[The norm of the Croatian standard language should be dealt with by the alreadyexisting institutions whose mission is to do so.], Jezik 60: 42. Such a polarization ofboth politicians and society over the Council triggered its use in the Croatian versionof the “cultural war.” For example, in an interview published in the daily newspaper
Slobodna Dalmacija on May 27, 2012, the former president of the Council Radoslav
Katičić accused the left-​liberal government of having abolished the Council because“the spirit of the Croatian language” bothers them. See “Ugasili su nas jer im smeta
duh hrvatskog jezika” [They have abolished us because the spirit of the Croatian
language bothers them] http://​slobod​nada​lmac​ija.hr/​novo​sti/​hrvat​ska/​cla​nak/​id/​168​
499/​akade​mik-​kati​cic-​ugas​ili-​su-​nas-​jer-​im-​smeta-​duh-​hrvats​kog-​jez​ika <June 15,
2016>. In contemporary Croatia, it is very common for right-​wing politicians andtheir supporters to accuse the left-​wing part of society of not being patriotic enough.
Members of the Council were: Joško Božanić (University of Split), Dunja Brozović
Rončević (the Institute of Croatian Language and Linguistics), Mislav Ježić (Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts), Ljiljana Kolenić (Faculty of Humanities andSocial Sciences, Osijek), Tomislav Ladan (the Miroslav Krleža Institute of Lexicography, who was later replaced by Marko Samardžija), Mile Mamić (University ofZadar), Dunja Pavličević-​Franić (Faculty of Teacher Education, Zagreb), Mirko Peti

56

Petar Vuković

The composition of the Council reflected a belief—​popular among many ordinary
users of Croatian, but partly also among Croatian linguists—​that the main difficulty
faced by contemporary Standard Croatian is the lack of consensus among linguists
on how current language problems should be solved, or even on what the current
language problems actually are. By gathering representatives of all relevant linguistic
institutions in Croatia, the Council was intended to become a body that would leadto such a consensus. In addition, by relying on both political and expert authority, itsought to be perceived as the supreme language arbiter in Croatia.
Members of the Council met once a month (at least at the beginning, whilein the later period of the Council’s work, meetings were held less frequently)
to discuss a topic chosen by the president of the Council. As a rule, the president prepared an elaborated introduction to the topic, after which a discussion
followed. In the discussions, dissonant voices were heard from time to time, butthey never influenced the decisions of the Council, since all the proposals of thepresident were eventually accepted. Minutes from the sessions of the Council, as
well as other documents related to its work, were published in the journal Jezik[Language] 60 (2013), No. 2–​4.
In the remaining part of the chapter, the work of the Council will be analyzed
from the perspective of LMT, with a focus on the Council’s approach to simple
language management, ideology and particular interests. However, before proceeding to the analysis, it should be noted that, in many details, the work of theCouncil was inspired by the paper “Načela standardnosti hrvatskoga jezika” [Principles of standardness of the Croatian language], written by the Council’s president, Radoslav Katičić,6 and published in 1996.

4 Th
 e “principles of standardness of Croatian”
Several fundamental topics are addressed in Katičić’s paper. To start with, he points
out that the dialect basis of the Croatian standard language is the Neo-​Štokavian
Jekavian dialect.7 Its choice was determined by the development of the language

67(Matica hrvatska), Ivo Pranjković (Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Zagreb), Branka Tafra (Croatian Studies, Zagreb), Marija Turk (Faculty of Humanities
and Social Sciences, Rijeka) and Ivan Zoričić (Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Pula).
As has already been mentioned, Radoslav Katičić is the most influential amongliving Croatian linguists. His research covers classical philology, ancient Balkan
languages, and Indian and Slavic philology. In the field of Croatian philology, hismain contributions were theoretical geno-​linguistic and sociolinguistic works, aswell as empirical research into medieval and early modern written Croatian. Since
1977, he has been professor of Slavic philology at the University of Vienna.
In the central South Slavic area, stretching from Slovenia in the northwest to Bulgaria and Macedonia in the southeast, Slavic dialects are traditionally divided into
four major groups. In the northwest of Croatia, Kajkavian dialects are spoken, while

Council for the Standard Croatian Language Norm

57

situation and literacy in Croatian lands from the fifteenth until the nineteenth
century, during which time the Neo-​Štokavian dialects gradually spread both territorially and as a medium of literacy. The final acceptance of the Neo-​Štokavian
Jekavian dialect as the basis for modern Standard Croatian in the nineteenth century was thus determined primarily by the inherent development of the Croatian
language situation, not by the desire for language unification with Serbs.8
However, although Standard Croatian is based on the Neo-​Štokavian Jekavian
dialect, it was also traditionally open to elements—​both lexical and grammatical—​from other Croatian dialects. This openness to other dialects was radically limited
after the language reform in the 1890s, with which coordinated Serbo-​Croatian
language planning had begun. The reform was marked by the so-​called “dialectpurism,” a view holding that all linguistic features that are not Neo-​Štokavian
should be eradicated from the standard language. In accordance with that view,
all non-​Neo-​Štokavian elements of Standard Croatian were proscribed, but as
many of them nevertheless survived, they became an object of the continuous criticism of Serbian linguists throughout the twentieth century.9 Katičić believes contemporary Standard Croatian should be open to reviving lexical items that were89Čakavian dialects are spoken in Istria and along the Dalmatian coast. Dialects fromboth of these groups are spoken primarily by Croats. On the other hand, in thesoutheast of Serbia, Torlakian dialects are spoken, mostly by Serbs. In the central area, covering most of Croatia, the whole of Bosnia-​Herzegovina, the whole ofMontenegro and most of Serbia, Štokavian dialects are spoken by Bosniaks, Croats,Montenegrins, and Serbs. Within Štokavian, archaic Paleo-​Štokavian dialects are
distinguished from the more innovative (primarily in accentuation and morphology)
Neo-​Štokavian dialects, which are further divided into Ikavian (spoken by Bosniaks
and Croats), Ekavian (spoken by Serbs) and Jekavian (spoken by Bosniaks, Croats,Montenegrins, and Serbs). While contemporary Standard Serbian is based on Neo-​Štokavian Ekavian, contemporary Standard Croatian, Bosnian and Montenegrin are
based on the Neo-​Štokavian Jekavian dialect.
By emphasizing this, Katičić actually responds to the claim that Croats have abandoned their own tradition of literacy in order to accept the “Serbian” Neo-​Štokavian
dialect. This view is best formulated in the paper “Srbi svi i svuda” [Serbs All andEverywhere] by Serbian language reformer Vuk Karadžić, published in his book
Kovčežić za istoriju, jezik i običaje Srba sva tri zakona [Treasure box for the history,
language and customs of Serbs of all three faiths] in 1849. According to Karadžić, all
speakers of Štokavian dialects should be treated as Serbs, including Roman Catholics
and Muslims. Speakers of Kajkavian dialects should be included as Slovenes, while
Croats are to be limited to speakers of Čakavian dialects only. During the twentieth century, Karadžić’s views were often repeated by many Serbian linguists andpoliticians.
Ivo Pranjković (1997) demonstrated that the most important Serbian linguistic journal
Naš jezik [Our language] labeled such features of Standard Croatian as “regional” or“provincial,” and insisted that the further standardization of Serbo-​Croatian ensure
they be replaced by their “neutral” equivalents used in Serbia.

58

Petar Vuković

eradicated at that time, and that even grammatical features of the nineteenth century Standard Croatian should be taught in schools.
In addition to his claim that the revival of eradicated non-​Neo-​Štokavian lexical elements in contemporary Standard Croatian should be supported, Katičić
points out that it is also necessary to encourage the formation of neologisms withdomestic Slavic morphemes to pair with already established Europeanisms. According to Katičić, the parallel existence of Europeanisms and domestically coined
words has characterized Croatian literacy since its beginnings in the Middle Ages.
Although this tradition has been weakened and depreciated during the period of
Serbo-​Croatian coordinated language policy and planning, Katičić believes that in
new circumstances it should be revived.
Finally, Katičić writes about orthography. Nineteenth-​century Croatian orthography was morphonological, which means it reflected the phonemic compositionof morphemes regardless of the phonetic processes that sometimes happen on theborder of morphemes within words. For example, the noun meaning ‘signature,’composed of the prefix pod-​and radix pis, was written podpis despite the fact that
it was pronounced [potpis] due to assimilation in the voice. Similarly, adjective
meaning ‘oral,’ composed of the radix ust-​and suffix -​ni, was written ustni despite
the fact that it was pronounced [usni] due to consonant cluster reduction. However, in the 1890s, Croatian orthography became—​from his point of view—​predominantly “phonological,” meaning that such phonetic processes are reflected inwriting, so the two mentioned words are written potpis and usni today. Katičić
claims that it would be too radical to return to morphonological orthography, butthat the morphonological principle is nevertheless alive in some details of contemporary Croatian orthography. In these cases, it competes with the dominantphonological principle, and contemporary written use should be monitored todetermine which is more convenient for language users and should therefore befollowed in codification.
In short, Katičić explains in the paper the basic principles on which, in his
opinion, the standardization of Croatian language has been based for centuries.
During the existence of Yugoslavia, characterized by a coordinated Serbo-​Croatian language policy and planning, these principles were often violated and even
openly denied, but the tradition of Croatian language standardization predated it
and many specific elements of this tradition survived despite continuous efforts toeradicate them. The article was based on the conviction that, in future, language
policy and planning for Croatian should be organized independently of otherclosely related central South Slavic languages, as hundred years of joint efforts
were rather unsuccessful and left too many grievances on the Croatian side. Katičić
called on contemporary language planners of Croatian to remain sensitive to thevalues on which Croatian language standardization was based in the past. Indeed,in the years that followed the break-​up of both Yugoslavia and Serbo-​Croatian joint
language policy and planning, Katičić’s paper became rather influential and widely
cited among Croatian linguists. The language ideology of the article resonated wellin the context of the newly gained political independence of Croatia, so most ofCouncil for the Standard Croatian Language Norm

59

Katičić’s ideas were accepted by Croatian linguists as moderate and uncontroversial. However, it turned out that putting them into practice in language management was much more difficult, as the example of the Council clearly demonstrates.

5 Th
 e approach to simple language management
When it comes to the Council’s approach to simple language management, i.e., to
the noting of language problems by users and to the solutions of these problems
that they spontaneously arrive at, the best indicator is probably the introductory
talk on the reasons for the establishment of the Council given by the Council’spresident at the first meeting. The minutes of this meeting state: “Another reason
is that, despite the fact that we have a well-​constructed and elaborated standard
language, the relation of the Croatian language community to it is deeply distorted.”10 In other words, Standard Croatian does exist in language manuals, but
language users rarely practice it. In the president’s talk in the Council’s second
meeting, a solution to this problem is also offered:
To traži energičan duhovni zaokret u odnosu prema normi, a ne zaokret u samoj normi,
zaokret u prosvjetnoj politici i osobito u nastavi hrvatskoga jezika i književnosti.11[What is needed is an energetic spiritual turn in relation to the language norm, nota turn in the language norm itself; what is needed is a turn in the educational policy,
especially in the teaching of Croatian language and literature.]

Since the relation of the users of Croatian to their own standard language is“deeply distorted,” the Council’s main aim is to coerce them into a “spiritual turn”
that would result in their undue respect for the prescribed norms of the standard
language.12 With such a starting point, it is no surprise that the Council demonstrated little understanding of simple (micro) language management as a point of
departure of the organized (macro) language management.
The lack of interest of the Council in simple language management is visible attwo levels. At the first level, the Council deals with problems that had not existed

10 Rasprava o zadaćama Vijeća za normu hrvatskoga standardnog jezika [Discussion
about the aims of the Council for the Standard Croatian Language Norm], Jezik
60: 62.
11 Temeljna pitanja odnosa hrvatske jezične zajednice prema svojemu standardnom
jeziku [Basic questions about the relation of the Croatian language community totheir standard language], Jezik 60: 67.
12 While in the Decision on the Establishment and Appointment of Members of theCouncil issued by Minister Primorac, the main task of the Council was set in terms
that can be connected primarily to corpus and status planning, these introductory
talks of the Council’s president demonstrate that the focus was in fact shifted toimage and prestige planning. In this way, the Council actually overstepped theboundaries within which it was supposed to work.

60

Petar Vuković

for language users until they were created by linguists themselves. Such cases
directly contradict the requirement that LMT sets before any form of organizedlanguage regulation:Jinými slovy, jazykový management se musí odpoutat od situace, kdy lingvisté či jinýpersonál určovali na základě velmi omezené zkušenosti z jazykové praxe, co je, či neníproblém. (Neustupný 2002: 435)
[In other words, language management must move away from the situation in which
linguists or other staff, on the basis of very limited experience from language practice,determine what is and what not a problem is.]The three most important problems of that kind which have attracted much attention in the discussions on Croatian orthography since the beginnings of the
1990s are whether prescribed spelling should be podatci or podaci (‘data’), ne ću or
neću (‘I will not’) and strjelica or strelica (‘arrow’).13 In the first two examples, theCouncil prescribes, and in the third example strongly recommends the first of thetwo possible solutions, despite the fact that all of them are extremely rare in contemporary written Croatian.
With regard to the first problem (podatci /​podaci), the Council’s president
acknowledges he is aware that his recommendation goes against majority use andthe absence of the simple language management in this point:
Na takav smo se pravopisni propis više manje naviknuli, to smo učili i mnogi su to
dobro naučili. Ipak se protiv takva pisanja javlja i spontan otpor.14[We have all got used to that rule [i.e., to writing podaci ‘data’], we learned it at school,
and many learned it well. Yet there is spontaneous resistance against such writing.]

However, he does not provide either data on what social groups of users of Croatian feel such “spontaneous resistance” and on what occasions, or on the methodology used to reach such a conclusion.15 In connection to the second problem,
13 Without going into too much detail, it should be pointed out that the first of the two
possible orthographic solutions were common in Croatian standard language until
the 1950s, when they were replaced by the second ones, typical of Serbian standard
language. In the second half of the twentieth century, the newly prescribed solutions
became gradually accepted, so that by the 1990s they were the only ones used in
written Croatian. However, in the 1990s, after several influential linguists insisted“original” Croatian forms be revived, many language users became uncertain as towhat orthographic solutions to use. Today, most media and publishing houses still
use the second solutions, while children are mostly taught the first ones in schools.
14 Prijeporna pitanja hrvatskoga pravopisa: dentalni okluzivi ispred afrikata [Controversial questions of Croatian orthography: dental stops in front of affricates], Jezik
60: 72–​73.
15 This is one of the cases in which the morphonological principle (podatci) competes
with the phonological one (podaci) and should, in the opinion of the Council, be
given priority.

Council for the Standard Croatian Language Norm

61

i.e., ne ću /​ neću ‘I will not,’ the minutes of meetings contain the following sentence: “Profesorica Kolenić je rekla da je u razgovoru s ljudima čula kako se
rastavljeno pisanje lako prihvaća.” [Professor Kolenić said that in conversation
with people she heard that writing ne ću was easily accepted.]16 Although thisis not a key argument in the discussion of this problem, in the context of theCouncil’s approach to simple language management this statement is symptomatic. The Council neither feels there is a need to monitor real language use toestablish what users of Croatian feel as language problems, nor does it consider
it necessary to examine how the solutions that it recommends are accepted byusers—​in both cases, surface impressions seem to be sufficient.
At the second level, the Council’s lack of interest in simple language management is manifested by denying the importance of the language problems with which
language users are really faced, as well as of the solutions that they spontaneously
arrive at. For example, in connection to the problem of writing derivatives fromforeign proper names, which often appears in contemporary written practice, theCouncil asserts the following:
Etnici i ktetici od tuđih imena mjesta pišu se glasovno prilagođeno. Tako Njujorčanin
i njujorški od New York, Lajpcižanin i lajpciški od Leipzig.17[Demonyms and adjectives derived from place names are written in a transphonemized
way. So Njujorčanin and njujorški from New York, Lajpcižanin and lajpciški from
Leipzig.]

This approach was dominant in the codification of Croatian orthography from the
1890s, but written practice, especially contemporary practice, is often different.
Moreover, corpus-​
based empirical research of contemporary written Croatiansuggests that derivatives from foreign proper names—​nouns, adjectives, and evenverbs—​are written mostly by keeping the original orthography in the stem, i.e.,
Newyorčanin instead of Njujorčanin, newyorški instead of njujurški, shakespeareovski
instead of šekspirovski (see Vuković 2002). Despite this, the Council sanctions thesolutions that are rarely used in written language.
With regard to some other important issues identified by individual Council
members as potentially problematic for users of contemporary Standard Croatian,
the Council as a whole has refused to even address them. A member of the Council,
Joško Božanić, warns for example of the need to conduct systematic research ofaccentuation, which in contemporary Standard Croatian is certainly no longer
classical Neo-​Štokavian:

16 Sastavljeno i rastavljeno pisanje niječnice i enklitičkih oblika glagola htjeti [Writing
negative particle and enclitic forms of the verb htjeti together or separately], Jezik
60: 77.
17 Pisanje stranih imena i od njih izvedenih pridjeva [Writing foreign names andadjectives derived from them], Jezik 60: 54.

62

Petar Vuković
Potrebno je doseći neutralni stupanj u izražavanju standardnim jezikom. To se najviše
tiče fonološke slike jezika, akcentuacije. Mimo jezične politike stvorila se jedna norma,
urbani govor, koja je u ponečemu udaljena od izvornoga novoštokavskog sustava. I topostaje znakom urbanoga idioma. Tu bi činjenicu trebalo osvijestiti i teoretski valjano
opisati.18[It is necessary to attain a neutral level in standard language use. This concerns mostly
the phonological image of language, accentuation. Independently of language policy, anorm, urban speech, has been created, which is somewhat different from the original
Neo-​Štokavian system. Moreover, it becomes a sign of urban speech. We should be awareof this fact and describe it theoretically.]

However, the majority in the Council took a position fully in accordance with the mission of the Council set in the introductory talk by the Council’s president:
Profesor Ježić je rekao da tu treba aktivirati škole i službe u medijima. Treba početi doista
učiti ortoepsku normu.19[Professor Ježić said that schools and language services in the media should become
more active. Language users should really start learning the orthoepic norm.]

Another member of the Council, Branka Tafra, attempted to open the question of toostrict language codification:[U]‌kroatistici prevladava pristup previše restriktivan. Prevelike su razlike između
uporabne i kodifikacijske norme. Potrebno je nešto promijeniti u pristupu standardu tesmatra da bi trebalo ‘olabaviti’ normu.20[The approach to language codification of Croatian is too restrictive. There are too manydifferences between the norms in real language use and codified norms. There is a needto change the approach to the standard language and to make language codification lessstrict.]However, the dominant approach in the Council was that it is not language codification, but language users that need to be changed:
Dunja Brozović Rončević rekla je da je problem u poremećenom odnosu premastandardnomu jeziku. […] Tijekom školovanja nema prigode uspostaviti primjeren

18 Jezična mijena i jezični razvoj; Ortoepska norma u elektroničkim medijima [Languagechange and language development: The orthoepic norm in electronic media], Jezik
60: 132.
19 Jezična mijena i jezični razvoj: Ortoepska norma u elektroničkim medijima [Languagechange and language development: The orthoepic norm in electronic media], Jezik
60: 133. Mislav Ježić served as the vice-​president of the Council, and his reply closed
discussion on this problem.
20 Standardni jezik i govorni jezik: Izvješće o projektu “Struna” [Standard language andspoken language: Report on the project “Struna”], Jezik 60: 139.

Council for the Standard Croatian Language Norm

63

odnos prema hrvatskomu standardnom jeziku. U srednjoj školi uopće nema jezične
izobrazbe. A za sve državne službenike bio bi potreban test iz kulture hrvatskoga
jezika.21[Dunja Brozović Rončević said the problem was in disturbed relations to the standard
language. […] During schooling, there is no opportunity to establish an appropriate
attitude towards the Croatian standard language. There is practically no language
education in secondary school at all. Moreover, for all civil servants it should be obligatory to pass an exam in the Croatian standard language.]

A specific problem amongst those addressed by the Council was the use of gender-​sensitive language. Though many speakers of Croatian aim at language use thatwould be more inclusive towards different disadvantaged social groups, with thelargest of them being women, the Council rejects such aspirations:
Stoga se u hrvatskome i većini jezika imenicom muškoga roda često označuju osobe
i muškoga i ženskoga spola. […] Tu nema pomoći nego treba poštovati ustroj jezika
ili razumijevanje postaje nemoguće. A to nema veze s neravnopravnošću spolova.22[In Croatian and in most other languages, masculine nouns often denote both men
and women. […] This cannot be changed; the structure of the language should be
respected if one does not want communication to become impossible. This has
nothing to do with gender inequality.]

However, many users of Croatian see this problem differently, for example, a
blogger on a news website wrote (Gruenfelder 2015):
Tipična muška logika! I to logika onoga koji se nalazi u poziciji moćnika, jer određuje
jezične norme. […] Jezikom, tim najznačajnijim sredstvom ljudske komunikacije, ženese dosljednom uporabom muškog roda čine ‘nečujnima’ i ‘nevidljivima,’ briše im se
trag. A jezik—​i hrvatski jezik—​omogućava da se žene ‘pojavljuju’ kao samosvojne
egzistencije.
[This is typical male logic! Moreover, this is the logic of a man who is in a position of
power, because he determines the language norms. […] In language, the most important means of human communication, women are made ‘inaudible’ and ‘invisible’ by
the consistent use of masculine forms. On the other hand, language—​the Croatian
language as well—​allows women to ‘appear’ as an autonomous existence.]

21 Standardni jezik i govorni jezik: Izvješće o projektu „Struna“ [Standard language andspoken language: Report on the project “Struna”], Jezik 60: 139. Dunja Brozović-​
Rončević was the secretary of the Council and this reply of hers closed discussion
on the subject.
22 Mišljenje Vijeća za normu hrvatskoga standardnog jezika o uporabi oblika ženskoga
roda za zvanja kao izraza poštovanja ravnopravnosti spolova [Opinion of the Council
on the use of forms of the feminine gender for profession names as an expression ofrespect for gender equality], Jezik 60: 155.

64

Petar Vuković

In accordance with such an understanding, it could be claimed that masculine
nouns have generic meaning only if there is consensus among speakers about this.
It seems that this consensus in Croatian (and not only in Croatian) is at least insome cases significantly weakened, so many speakers turn to gender-​sensitive use.
The Council shows no understanding for this problem—​in fact, it argues that gender
neutral use can only be achieved at the expense of radically reduced language
economy, and even then not completely, so it should not be striven for at all.23
The problem of gender-​neutral language use is one of the most serious language
problems that users of Croatian face in everyday communication, designing for it
numerous different (and sometimes indeed clumsy) solutions. It would be useful
if those spontaneously devised solutions were systematically described, since thiswould be a starting point for recommendations on which of them to use in formal
language. However, the Council dismisses this problem altogether.

6 Th
 e approach to ideology and particular interests
Ideologies generally play an important role in organized language management,
among other things due to the motivational power they can have (for more about
language ideologies, see, e.g., Schieffelin, Woolard & Kroskrity 1998; Blommaert
1999, 2006). The Council’s approach to language management is also distinctively
marked by a specific ideology, which is connected to how the most prominent
members of the Council perceive and understand the Croatian language. In theiropinion, the Croatian language developed favorably during the nineteenth century within the so-​called Philological School of Zagreb. This school worked along
the “principles of standardness” that Katičić writes about; however, it did not havethe final word on the standardization of modern Croatian. The concluding step
towards modern Standard Croatian was made by the language reform of the 1890s,
with its morphological and lexical Neo-​Štokavization: it resulted in a stable standard language that gradually became more and more accepted, but, at the sametime, represented a significant break with earlier language traditions. In connection with this, the president of the Council, Radoslav Katičić, points out:
Tu je zadaću samouvjereno bezobzirno, ali i funkcionalno uspješno izvršila škola
hrvatskih vukovaca.24[That task was accomplished self-​confidently and recklessly, but in a functionally successful manner by the Croatian followers of Vuk Karadžić.]23 In Croatian, gender is marked on all nouns, as well as on all other words in a sentenceagreeing with nouns, i.e., on adjectives, pronouns, and even some verbal forms. This
makes it rather complicated to attain gender-​neutral language use.
24 Bivše Vijeće za normu hrvatskoga standardnog jezika [The former Council for theStandard Croatian Language Norm], Jezik 60: 45. Vuk Karadžić, the already mentioned Serbian language reformer from the nineteenth century, published numerous
books of Neo-​Štokavian oral literature, which became quite famous throughoutCouncil for the Standard Croatian Language Norm

65

The language reform of the 1890s was later followed by the imposed orthography by Serbian linguist Aleksandar Belić in the 1920s and the so-​called Novi Sad
agreement in the 1950s, which both contributed to the further eradication of specific Croatian language features. The Council therefore claimed that its most fundamental role is to bring the Croatian language back to its essence by promoting
the “spiritual turn.” The language ideology of the Council is visible primarily in the
topics that it discussed. On the other hand, the way the Council approaches ideology can be best seen in the arguments it uses to support its proposal.
When it comes to the topics, two of them are particularly indicative. The first
concerns the old plural forms for dative, locative and instrumental. In nineteenth
century Croatian, each of the three cases had its own form, for example the noun
with the meaning ‘woman’ had the form ženam in the dative plural, ženah in thelocative plural, and ženami in the instrumental plural. In contemporary standard
Croatian, there is only one form common for all three cases: ženama. This new
syncretic form, characteristic for the Neo-​Štokavian dialect, was codified within
the language reform of the 1890s. Moreover, after the language reform had been
implemented, Croatian literary classics from the nineteenth century were consistently published in revised editions that followed new grammatical (as well as lexical and orthographical) codification. Katičić urges that they have to be publishedand read in their original language, which would make it possible for the old pluralforms to return to the school curriculum. In Katičić’s words, this would heal
teško narušena cjelovitost hrvatskoga književnog jezika i živ odnos prema njegovoj
prošlosti […]. Time se hrvatska jezična kultura ozdravljuje od bolesnoga stanja
zatirana sjećanja, prave damnatio memoriae, kojom je bila udarena uz bezobzirno‘osuvremenjivanje’ književnih tekstova.25[the seriously disrupted integrity of the Croatian literary language and live relationship with its past […]. This would help Croatian linguistic culture to recover from theunhealthy condition, a genuine damnatio memoriae, which hit it with the reckless‘modernization’ of literary texts.]

The second topic is also connected to Neo-​Štokavian “dialectal purism,” but it
concerns the lexical layer. As has already been mentioned, the language reformof the 1890s insisted that only Neo-​Štokavian lexical elements be kept in Standard
Croatian, while those from other dialects should be eradicated. The Council rejects
this attitude and insists on a more inclusive approach. In connection with this, theCouncil’s president emphasizes:

Europe. This contributed to the fact that many of his followers in Croatia started
believing that the Neo-​Štokavian dialect best represents the spirit of “our people.”
25 Stari množinski padeži u hrvatskoj jezičnoj naobrazbi [Old plural endings in Croatian
language education], Jezik 60: 92.

66

Petar Vuković
Trebat će pri tome napustiti isključivu orijentaciju prema rječniku kulturne sfere
obilježene planinskim stočarstvom, orijentaciju koja sve do danas prepoznatljivo
oblikuje strukovne predodžbe o našoj leksičkoj normi, i prihvatiti leksičko bogatstvo
drugih hrvatskih kulturnih ambijenata, kao što su jadranski, panonski i podalpski.26[An exclusive orientation toward the vocabulary of the cultural sphere marked by
mountain cattle-​breeding, which until today recognizably defines the approach ofmany experts to our lexical norm, will have to be abandoned, and the lexical wealthof other Croatian cultural milieus, such as the Adriatic, Pannonian and Subalpine, will
have to be accepted.]

In this quotation, the Neo-​Štokavian vocabulary is connected to “the cultural
sphere marked by mountain cattle-​breeding,” which replicates the nineteenth-​century stereotype popular in northwestern Croatian towns that the speakers of the
Neo-​Štokavian dialect are illiterate highland shepherds. According to Katičić, many
Croatian linguists still believe it is exclusively the Neo-​Štokavian lexical layer thatshould be represented in Standard Croatian. He, on the other hand, claims that
Standard Croatian should be enriched with rejected lexical items typical of urban
Croatia: Adriatic (Čakavian dialect), Pannonian (Paleo-​Štokavian dialect) and Subalpine (Kajkavian dialect).
It has to be pointed out that neither of these two topics causes contemporary users of Standard Croatian much pain. In fact, the existence of the old pluralforms,27 as well as the alleged oversaturation of Standard Croatian vocabulary
with the culture of “mountain cattle breeding,” are not common public knowledge.
Moreover, it is not clear what the Council thinks should be done with contemporary Standard Croatian to make it more open towards old plural forms and vocabulary from other dialects. The fact that the Council addresses these topics obviously
has more to do with the proclaimed “spiritual turn” than with organized language
management conducted with the intention of solving language problems faced byusers in their interactions.
When it comes to the arguments used to support the proposed solutions, twoof them are particularly striking. In the first one, the Council introduced a newtheoretical conception, according to which Croatian standard language does nothave a Neo-​Štokavian base, but is only “stylized” as Neo-​Štokavian.28 The conception is at least questionable, and, at best, it could be discussed in the pages of
linguistic journals. However, when one has in mind that the phonological and morphological system of contemporary Standard Croatian is practically completely

26 Temeljna pitanja leksičke norme [Basic questions of the lexical norm], Jezik 60: 96.
27 These forms were abandoned by the codification in the 1890s because they werehardly used even at that time.
28 See Dijalekatska osnovica hrvatskoga standardnog jezika; Prilozi o strukovnome
nazivlju [Dialect base of Croatian standard language: Contributions to terminology],
Jezik 60: 115–​117.

Council for the Standard Croatian Language Norm

67

Neo-​Štokavian, as is most of its lexical and syntactic system, it is difficult to conceive what evidence would be used to support such a claim. Interestingly, it also
contradicts what Katičić argued in his article of 1996, i.e., that the dialect basis ofcontemporary Standard Croatian is the Neo-​Štokavian Jekavian dialect. Given that
this new conception is far from being even marginally accepted, it can hardly serve
as a non-​controversial theoretical starting point for the organized management of
the Croatian standard language.
The second argument that I want to refer to is connected to the problem ofwhether the plural form of the word meaning ‘data’ should be written podatci or
podaci, which was already mentioned above. This problem has traditionally been
described as one of the orthographic issues where morphonological and phonological principles are in conflict: while the former would require users to write podatci(so that the radix dat is better represented in writing), the latter would prescribe
podaci (because the consonant cluster /​tc/​on the border between radix and suffix
is reduced to /​c/​, corresponding to pronunciation). Contrary to that, the Council
attempts to prove that the phonological principle, if consistently applied, would
actually require users to write dodatci, not dodaci:
Eksperimentalno je fonetsko istraživanje, međutim, pokazalo egzaktnim mjerenjem dase tu ne izgovara obična afrikata, nego nešto produljena. Ono što se po tome pravopisu
pisalo dodaci ne izgovara se jednako kao junaci. Po fonološkome načelu trebalo bi
tu pisati dodacci. No udvajanje suglasnika kako bi se označilo da su produljeni nijeuobičajeno u hrvatskoj grafiji. Primjerenije je onda pisati dodatci.29[Experimental phonetic research with the help of exact measuring demonstrated thatwhat is pronounced in those positions is not a simple affricate, but a prolonged one.
What, according to those [i.e., phonological] rules, is written dodaci is not pronounced
in the same way as junaci. The phonological principle would require us to write
dodacci. However, in Croatian orthography, double consonants are not a common
signal of their lengthening. It is therefore more adequate to write dodatci.]

This argument has several weak points. First, the Council does not say who
conducted this experimental research and where the results have been published.
Second, even if these results were credible, they could only prove how the word is
pronounced, not its phonemic composition. Finally, even if the word podaci indeed
contained the doubling of the phoneme /​c/​, i.e., /​dodacci/​, it remains unclear how
to come from the phonetic evidence to morphological orthography and why it
would be phonologically “more adequate” to write it dodatci. In short, the argument remains deeply unconvincing, but it is symptomatic of the way the Council
approaches language management.

29 Bivše Vijeće za normu hrvatskoga standardnog jezika [Former Council for the Standard Croatian Language Norm], Jezik 60: 48.

68

Petar Vuković

The recommendation to write podatci is then rather motivated by the Council’s
language ideology: this way of writing was typical of Croatian until 1960, when
it was replaced by another orthographical solution, more typical for Serbian; now
the original Croatian solution should be restored. Something similar can be said
about the Council’s approach to the dialect base of Croatian: during the nineteenth
century, Croatian was much more open to different dialects, and only in the 1890s
did it become predominantly Neo-​Štokavian; the aim should be to restore the original situation. However, instead of acknowledging openly that their aims are motivated by language ideology, the Council attempts to prove that what they favor isbetter for purely linguistic, exact and scientific reasons, although this interpretation of language development is not a consensus in Croatian linguistics.
To achieve a change, the language ideology has to be shared by the language
community. The fact that neither of the Council’s recommendations was accepted
points to the fact that in this particular situation that was not the case: most active
users of Standard Croatian seem to think neither that their relation to language is“distorted” nor that they need the “spiritual turn” that the Council proposes. For
them, the most relevant starting point for the discussion of the contemporary Croatian language seems to be the functionality of its present-​day use, which actuallycorresponds to the basic postulates of LMT. In accordance with these postulates,organized language management should look for solutions to real problems thatusers face in their communication, not for invented ones. Moreover, the proposed solutions should be formulated reasonably to be acceptable for them. These
recommendations should not be based on controversial ideologies and “theories,”
because that automatically decreases their acceptability.
In the Council, such an approach is best represented by its member Ivo
Pranjković. In one of the Council’s meetings, Pranjković discussed the problem ofwhether enclitic forms of the verb htjeti ‘will’ should be written separately fromthe negative particle, i.e., ne ću ‘I will not’ (which was typical of Croatian until1960), or together with it, i.e., neću (which was originally typical of Serbian and in1960 was also accepted in Croatian). Pranjković claims:
Ako uvođenje sastavljenog pisanja neću i jest bilo rezultat nasilja 1960. godine, nisamza to da se jedno nasilje ispravlja novim, a uvođenje pisanja ne ću nasilje je već i zatošto oni koji su uvođenje pisanja neću eventualno doživjeli kao nasilje imaju danas
najmanje 55 godina, a i oni su u međuvremenu stekli novu naviku.30[Even if the introduction of writing neću was indeed a result of violence in 1960,
I cannot support one act of violence being replaced with another. The introduction ofwriting ne ću today is also violence, because those who experienced the introduction

30 Sastavljeno i rastavljeno pisanje niječnice i enklitičkih oblika glagola htjeti [Writing
negative particle and enclitic forms of the verb htjeti together or separately], Jezik
60: 76.

Council for the Standard Croatian Language Norm69

of ne ću as violence are at least 55 years old now, and, in the meantime even they havedeveloped the new habit [of writing neću].]In short, Pranjković insists that there is no need to intervene into a use that iscompletely accepted by users, even if we know it is of foreign (Serbian) origin. However, a different approach to this problem prevailed in the Council. Commenting
on the fact that most media and publishing houses continue to use neću—​i.e., thesolution to which they are accustomed, regardless of its Serbian origin—​one of themost prominent members of the Council, Mislav Ježić, warned thatda je odbijanje rastavljenoga pisanja u znatnom dijelu visokotiražnih medija rezultat
jezične politike i na njoj zasnovane lekture koja se provodi u njima.31[the fact that most of the media reject writing ne ću is the result of language politics
and of their editing practices based on that politics.]

In other words, Ježić does not accept that the media continue to write neću simply
because users of Croatian use it and do not believe it is necessary to change it. He
claims it is “language politics” that prevents the media from accepting the solutionthat the Council attempts to reintroduce.
The work of the Council was an important part of the right-​wing conservativeand nationalist cultural agenda, for which it is central to promote Croatian linguistic identity, especially as opposed to Serbian. However, members of the Council
never explicitly reflected how and why the Council was established and claimed
that their proposals were motivated by purely linguistic reasons. It is, however,interesting that the way they wanted to promote Croatian linguistic identity was
not accepted even by the right-​wing part of society. The Council primarily focusedon restoring elements eradicated from Croatian during the period of Serbo-​Croatian coordinated language policy and planning, but at the same time neglected thecontemporary tendencies that are typically Croatian. Two such tendencies havebeen mentioned above: writing derivatives from foreign proper names and thesystematic derivation of feminine nouns. It is precisely these two examples that
demonstrate the degree to which the Council neglects the predominant language
use as a result of simple language management. Members of the Council also dismiss new developmental tendencies that are typically Croatian and could be used
to emphasize a distinct Croatian linguistic identity. The work of the Council was
almost entirely focused on language history.
This may be the reason why the propositions of the Council were rejectedeven by the right-​wing part of society. For example, Ivo Sanader, prime ministerof the right-​wing government that founded the Council, publicly refused to accept orthography solutions proposed by the Council, as did most of the media

31 Sastavljeno i rastavljeno pisanje niječnice i enklitičkih oblika glagola htjeti [Writing
the negative particle and enclitic forms of the verb htjeti together or separately],
Jezik 60: 77.

70

Petar Vuković

and publishing houses, including the most important right-​wing newspapers. It
seems that, instead of simply promoting ideology typical of the right-​wing part of
Croatian society, members of the Council promoted their own—​much narrower—​interests: to impose their own interpretation of what Croatian should look likeand to maintain their social positions as supreme language arbiters, whereby thenarrative of the need for a “spiritual turn” in relation to Standard Croatian served
as a means to mobilize followers. Recommendations of the Council were eventually rejected by the majority of society, so based on that it can be claimed thatthe organized language management practiced by the Council was unsuccessful.
More than that, it was harmful because it destabilized language use (new school
generations vs. users educated before the suggested solution were introduced) andprovoked heated discussions by radicalized participants.

7 C onclusion
Analyzing the diachronic development of modern organized language management, Neustupný (2006) distinguished three basic types. The early modern type,which dominated from the beginning of the nineteenth century until the end of theFirst World War, is characterized by emphasizing the independence of a particularlanguage from other languages and its instrumentalization in strengthening thecohesion of the community of its speakers. Standard language was considered an
important symbol of ethnic connectedness, and its dissemination into wider social
strata was encouraged. In this type of organized language management, widelyconceived reforms were conducted, with linguistic purism often being an important component. The second type of organized language management is characteristic of the period from the end of the First World War until the 1960s. At that time,
most language communities in the West already had elaborated and stabilized
standard languages, with linguistic communities being relatively isolated fromeach other. Organized language management was therefore oriented towards functional differentiation of the standard language, i.e., to its adaptation to new communication needs. Only moderate intervention and less emotional engagement
were typical of this type of organized language management, with the Prague Linguistic School being one of its prominent representatives. In the 1960s, the latemodern (or postmodern) period began in organized language management. Dueto globalization, the isolation of nations and language communities decreased, andthe development of standard languages was strongly influenced by new media.
Class, gender, regional and ethnic variations in language became more visible, butthey were no longer perceived as problems—​on the contrary, they were often glorified. Accordingly, all types of discrimination were to be removed from languageuse. The late-​modern type of organized language management aims at providing
everyone with the opportunity to use their own language variety in public space,
without being labeled. At the same time, however, consensus is still strong that, forthe sake of communication efficiency, the common language remains important.

Council for the Standard Croatian Language Norm

71

In Vuković (2009), these three types of organized language management are called
delimitative, functional and inclusive.
The Council for the Standard Croatian Language Norm conducted essentiallydelimitative organized language management. On the one hand, it neglected theimportance of the questions of linguistic functionality and social inclusiveness,
which are crucial from the perspective of ordinary language users. On the other
hand, it proposed interventions that directly opposed stabilized language use of
the majority of language users, which were motivated primarily by an identity
narrative. As can be seen from Neustupný’s diachronic typology of organizedlanguage management, this type of language regulation is more characteristic of
the nineteenth than of the twenty-​first century. Prominent members of the Council
were apparently convinced they had both the authority and power to impose on
the whole language community not only language standards, but also the imageof what Croatian language actually is. It turned out they were wrong: the majority
in Croatian society, including many of its right-​wing supporters, accepted neither
the ideology of the Council nor the solutions they proposed. Although the recent
history of the Croatian language may explain why this type of language ideology
has survived until today in parts of Croatian society and among some Croatianlinguists, in the present circumstances it is hardly anything but a historical relicwhich cannot contribute to successful organized language management. If theorganized language management of contemporary Standard Croatian is to be successful, it will have to be more attentive to usage and simple language management
and based on a much less controversial language ideology. This will ensure that it
is not pursuing only the narrow interest of those who are conducting it.

References
Blommaert, J. (ed) (1999) Language Ideological Debates. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Blommaert, J. (2006) Language ideology. In K. Brown (ed) Encyclopedia of Language& Linguistics 6. Oxford: Elsevier, 510–​522.
Gruenfelder, A. M. (2015) Predsjednik ili Predsjednica? [President or female president?] On WWW at http://​www.autog​raf.hr/​pred​sjed​nik-​ili-​preds​jedn​ica/​.
Accessed May 15, 2019.
Jernudd, B. H. & Neustupný, J. V. (1987) Language planning: For whom? In
L. Laforge (ed) Actes du Colloque international sur l’aménagemant linguistique /​Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Language Planning. Québec: Les
Presses de l’Université Laval, 69–​84.
Katičić, R. (1996) Načela standardnosti hrvatskoga jezika [Principles of standardnessof the Croatian language]. Jezik: Časopis za kulturu hrvatskoga književnoga
jezika 43 (5), 175–​182.
Langston, K. & Peti-​Stantić, A. (2011) A language academy by any other name(s): Thecase of Croatia. Language Policy 10 (4), 343–​360.

72

Petar Vuković

Neustupný, J. V. (1970) Basic types of treatment of language problems. Linguistic
Communications 1, 77–​98. (Reprint in J. A. Fishman (ed) (1974) Advances in
Language Planning. The Hague & Paris: Mouton, 37–​48.)
Neustupný, J. V. (1978) Outline of a theory of language problems. In J. V. Neustupný(ed) Post-​Structural Approaches to Language: Language Theory in a Japanese Context. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press, 243–​257.
Neustupný, J. V. (1983) Towards a paradigm for language planning. Language Planning Newsletter 9 (4), 1–​4.
Neustupný, J. V. (2002) Sociolingvistika a jazykový management [Sociolinguistics
and language management]. Sociologický časopis 38 (4), 429–​442.
Neustupný, J. V. (2006) Sociolinguistic aspects of social modernization. In
U. Ammon, N. Dittmar & K. J. Mattheier (eds) Sociolinguistics: An International
Handbook of the Science of Language and Society. Berlin & New York: Walter deGruyter, 2209–​2223.
Peti-​Stantić, A. & Langston, K. (2013) Hrvatsko jezično pitanje danas: Identiteti i
ideologije [The Croatian Language Question Today: Identities and Ideologies].
Zagreb: Srednja Europa.
Pranjković, I. (1997) Hrvatski standardni jezik u staroj Jugoslaviji: Na primjeru
časopisa Naš jezik [Croatian standard language in old Yugoslavia: On theexample of the journal Naš jezik]. Croatica: prinosi proučavanju hrvatskeknjiževnosti 27 (45/​46), 147–​155.
Schieffelin, B. B., Woolard, K. A. & Kroskrity, P. V. (eds) (1998) Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Vuković, P. (2002) O pisanju izvedenica od stranih vlastitih imena u hrvatskome[On writing of derivatives from foreign proper names in Croatian]. Fluminensia
14 (2), 85–​104.
Vuković, P. (2009) Typologie moderního jazykového managementu [Typology
of modern language management]. In E. Rusinová (ed) Přednášky a besedy z
XLII. běhu LŠSS [Lectures and Talks from the Forty-​Second Course of Summer
School of Slavonic Studies]. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 208–​214.
Vuković, P. (2016) Vijeće za normu i teorija upravljanja jezikom [Council for
the Standard Croatian Language Norm and Language Management Theory].
Suvremena lingvistika 42 (82), 219–​235.

Jakub Kopecký

Divergent interests and argumentationin Czech Language Consulting Centerinteractions
Abstract This chapter examines phone interactions between language users and theLanguage Consulting Center (LCC) of the Czech Language Institute of the Czech
Academy of Sciences within the framework of Language Management Theory. Language
consulting interactions are considered to be part of a complex process of language management, consisting both of micro and macro management. I focus on cases of diverging
interests in LCC interactions, i.e., on instances of disagreement, opposing standpoints
or even conflicts between the inquirer and the LCC linguist. The chapter investigatesand describes different interests of the interactants, causes and forms of their divergence, ways of solving subsequent disputes and their various outcomes. In these conflicting exchanges, argumentation plays a very important role due to its problem-​solving
capacity. In connection with the persuasion process, I devote attention to the language
ideologies advocated by linguists and inquirers, particularly with regard to the extent
to which they coincide or differ. These ideologies have a significant influence on thecontent of argumentation as well as on the overall course of these conversations. I also
discuss the type and degree of authority the inquirers ascribe to the LCC. This authority
is continually negotiated during the consulting process and the acceptability of LCC’s
arguments plays a decisive role in it.
Keywords language management, Language Consulting Center, language cultivation,interest, argumentation, language ideology, linguistic authority

1 I ntroduction
Language consultancy interactions are an interesting case of contact and cooperation between actors in simple and organized language management (or various types of organized management). Language users, mostly laypeople, fromvarious social groups and environments, contact a language institution to ask forassistance in solving their language and communication problems. Clients of aconsulting center enter into these interactions with different assumptions and expectations: they may prefer a specific solution to the problem and ask only forthe confirmation that their adjustment is correct, or they may not tend toward aparticular solution; they may attribute different language management roles anddifferent degrees of authority to the language institution. In relation to this, they

74

Jakub Kopecký

also construct their own roles as language users and language management actors
in different ways.
The aim of this chapter is to analyze phone interactions between language users
and the Language Consulting Center (jazyková poradna in Czech; hereafter LCC),
run by the Czech Language Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences (hereafter CLI), from the point of view of Language Management Theory (hereafter
LMT; see Jernudd & Neustupný 1987; Nekvapil 2012). Continuing in the direction
taken in studies about LCC interactions by Beneš, Prošek, Smejkalová & Štěpánová
(2018) and Prošek (2020),1 this chapter focuses on cases of disagreement, opposing
standpoints or even conflicts between the inquirer and the LCC linguist. In thesecases, the interests of both parties diverge and these are the very interactions thatcan provide extensive information about the language ideologies advocated bytheir participants, whether they concern solutions to specific language problems,or general issues of organized language management. Contradictory interactions
also reveal many valuable insights into the power relationships between the actors
involved.
I analyze the sources of these situations and the development of theseinteractions. How do the participants try to resolve their dispute? How do they
use argumentation to convince the other party and how do they react to theiropponent’s arguments? I also devote attention to the language ideologies advocated by linguists and inquirers, particularly with regard to the extent to which
they coincide or differ, since these ideologies have a significant influence on themanner of argumentation as well as on the overall course of these conversations.
I also try to find out if these interactions’ development reveals anything about thecharacter of the power or authority the inquirers ascribe to the CLI.

2 L
 anguage Consulting Center
The LCC assists the general public in dealing with issues related to the Czech
language (or regarding language problems in general) (cf. Beneš, Prošek,
Smejkalová & Štěpánová 2018; Uhlířová 2002; Nekvapil 2008). Currently theinquiries are received mainly by telephone. The LCC phone line is in service for2 hours each working day (as of September 2021). The members of the Department of Language Cultivation take turns answering the queries from the public.
This phone consultancy is free of charge, the inquirers pay only the regular phonecharges. In addition, the LCC provides written statements upon request, which is a
paid service and will not be analyzed here.
As for the thematic structure of the queries, most of them concern Czech
orthography, lexicon, morphology, word-​formation and syntax (cf. Uhlířová 2002).
Only a few queries concern pragmatic or sociolinguistic issues. From the pointof view of language planning, which distinguishes between status, corpus and1

Cf. also Jernudd (2018) on language cultivation agencies in Sweden.

Divergent interests and argumentation75

acquisition planning (Cooper 1989: 31 f.), the absolute majority of queries concern
issues related to the corpus planning of Czech.
Here I term the participants in the LCC interactions inquirer and LCC linguist. While the role of a linguist is given institutionally, by his/​her affiliation andworking position in the CLI, the inquirer’s role is primarily a construct created by
the LCC: the expected action of the LCC clients is to present a language query, as
evidenced by both the name of the institution—​clients of a consulting center turnto it prototypically for advice2—​and the text on its website.3 Most callers meet thisexpectation and ask the LCC a language question, requesting help with solving
a language problem. However, some clients’ calls exceed this framework; theiractions do not always have a clear and predominantly questioning nature. They
do not (just) want to receive “language advice,” but, for example, to tell the LCC
their opinion about a particular language problem, to criticize the language of themedia, to evaluate the activities of the CLI or to make suggestions for changing
its activities etc. (cf. ­examples 11 and 12). Therefore, the term inquirer cannot be
understood as a precise description of the activity of all callers, but is an institutionally assigned role that not all callers fulfill exactly.
It should be stated at the outset that the activities of the LCC (and the whole
CLI) are not supported by any form of legal authority and it is supposed that thegeneral respect for its statements is maintained due to tradition and social reputation with respect to linguistic expertise4 (Beneš, Prošek, Smejkalová & Štěpánová
2018: 137; Prošek & Smejkalová 2011). One of my aims is to find out whether thecourse of the analyzed interactions confirms the existence of this general respectand how stable this respect is.
Since 2013, LCC phone interactions have been recorded for further linguistic
research. With the support of a grant from the Czech Ministry of Culture, therecorded inquiries have been analyzed, classified and used to create a linguistically structured database5 (Prošek 2020). Thanks to this project, I could also use therecordings of LCC interactions for the analysis of language management processes.
2
3

4
5

In Czech, the word poradna (‘consulting center’) is derived from the verb poradit(‘advise’).
For example, right in the first sentence of one of the texts on the LCC website, clientsare categorized as inquirers who address language queries to the LCC: “Vzhledem
k narůstajícímu počtu zájemců o jazykovou radu doporučujeme tazatelům a dalším
zájemcům o češtinu, aby se nejdříve pokusili vyhledat odpověď na svůj dotaz
samostatně […].” [Given the growing number of people interested in language advice,
we recommend to inquirers and other people interested in Czech to first try to findthe answer to their question themselves […].]” (http://​www.ujc.cas.cz/​jazyk​ova-​pora​
dna/​jak-​jazyk​ova-​pora​dna-​fung​uje.html; translated by JK). Accessed June 23, 2019.
The only exception is the school edition of Pravidla českého pravopisu [The Rules ofCzech Orthography] that is binding in the school setting (Beneš, Prošek, Smejkalová& Štěpánová 2018: 137).
The database is available online at https://​dot​azy.ujc.cas.cz/​.

76

Jakub Kopecký

For the purposes of this study, I examined more than 320 audio recordings of telephone interactions from 2016 to 2018 (of which about fifty recordings, containing
phenomena examined in this study, were analyzed in more detail), using the methodof the ethnomethodological conversation analysis (Sidnell & Stivers 2013), which
provides a sophisticated apparatus for the study of spoken interactions. I also draw
some information in this text from my experience gained through working in the
CLI, several years of which took place in the LCC (until 2015).

3 L anguage management processes in the LCC
The Language Management Framework emphasizes different levels of social
processes and the interrelationships between them. It focuses on micro level of
everyday interactions (simple, discourse-​based management) as well as macrolevel of institutions and other social networks (organized, institutional management) and it explores the extent to which the activities of actors at different levels
are linked (Nekvapil 2012, 2016).
I argue that a language management act (including simple language management) is very often a collective and an interactive activity of which the communication (negotiation) between its participants is an integral part (cf. Kopecký
2014; Miyazaki 2001). This is also the case of interactions between the LCC andinquirers. When an inquirer asks the LCC for advice, he/​she is usually the initiator of the language management act (alternatively, another person can have been
the initiator, e.g., in the case of a dispute between the inquirer and this person).
The LCC then becomes an invited co-​actor of this management, and both actors
are jointly looking for a solution to a given language problem. These are usuallyproblems based on simple management of speakers (the inquirer, for example, tries
to find out how to correctly inflect a noun that he/​she wants to use in a text). However, the representatives of various institutions also frequently turn to the LCC
addressing various language issues beyond specific interactions, their inquiries arethus part of the organized management of the institution.6 At the same time, the
LCC involvement is a part of the organized language management, which is trans-​
interactional and consists of the long-​term provision of language consultancy. This
activity is governed by certain general principles, resulting from the institution’s
language ideology and forming part of its language policy (see below) (cf. Nekvapil& Sherman 2015). This leads to the confrontation and intertwining of the acts ofsimple management, performed in the co-​operation of the inquirers with the LCC,
and the organized management of the LCC. In the case of institutional inquiries,
different types of organized management are confronted.

6E.g., when a municipal official asks for the correct spelling of the phrase hodnoticí
vs. hodnotící komise (‘evaluation committee’), which he repeatedly uses in official
documents.

Divergent interests and argumentation

77

Within LMT, the following basic stages of the language management process
are distinguished: a speakerʼs noting of a specific language phenomenon (often
a deviation from the norm), positive or negative evaluation of it, planning of an
adjustment and implementation of it. At any of these stages, this process can cometo an end (cf. Nekvapil 2012). An LCC interaction can contain traces of or reports
about some of these stages that occurred before the interaction itself. This applies
mainly to the inquirerʼs noting and evaluation: the speaker can inform the linguist about them during the phone call. Other stages of language management arethen conducted directly during the LCC interaction. Typical activities performedby the LCC are the evaluation of the language phenomenon that is the subjectof the query, i.e., forming and expressing an opinion on the language problem,and presenting an adjustment proposal. The evaluation and adjustment plan areoften accompanied by arguments in favor of these opinions, or, if the inquirer
disagrees with the opinion, he/​she may argue against it. In some interactions, theinquirer signals the acceptance or non-​acceptance of the submitted plan and its
future (non-​)implementation (cf. Beneš, Prošek, Smejkalová & Štěpánová 2018).
The LCC interaction recordings therefore contain a large amount of valuable dataon the course of language management and a detailed analysis of these data allows
for its description, or partial reconstruction.

4 L
 anguage ideologies
Language ideologies held by the inquirers and LCC linguists have a major influence on the course of their interactions. According to Silversteinʼs classic definition, language ideologies are “sets of beliefs about language articulated by users
as a rationalization or justification of perceived language structure and use” (Silverstein 1979: 193). Blommaert defines them as “socially and culturally embedded
metalinguistic conceptualizations of language and its forms of usage” (Blommaert
2006: 241). Julia de Bres (2013), continuing in the direction of Kroskrity (2004),
Woolard (1998) and others, presents among the key features of language ideologies their normative nature (cf. also Nekvapil & Sherman 2013), their relationshipto interests (“language ideologies are used as a means of promoting individualand group interests” de Bres 2013: 57), and a link between language ideologies
and power relations within society (cf. also Kimura 2017). I use ideology (in accordance with the above definitions) as a neutral term, without negative (critical)
connotations (cf. Woolard 1998: 7–​8).
In this section, I will focus primarily on language ideologies expressed by LCC
linguists. According to Woolard (1998), Kroskrity (2004) and others, linguistic theories may contain ideological elements or may be directly based on language ideologies. Scientific theories of language cannot be placed in opposition to ideologicalconceptualizations of language. The main theoretical basis of the language consultancy provided by the LCC is the Prague School theory of language cultivationand the theory of standard language (Havránek 1932; Daneš 1987; cf. Neustupný
& Nekvapil 2003: 332 f.). According to Beneš, Prošek, Smejkalová & Štěpánová

78

Jakub Kopecký

(2018: 121), the main aim of the LCC is to “maintain and further develop (cultivate) the Standard Czech language.” The aforementioned theories conceive (standard) language as the subject of regulation and cultivation by language institutions(through codification, language education etc.). In opposition to purism, codification should be based on (standard) language use and the standard language norm.
The standard language norm is defined as a set of standard language resources andthe rules for combining them that are perceived as binding for selected communicative functions by the language community (Nebeská 2016a). Despite its positive
attitude towards language regulation, it is obvious that the theory of language
cultivation does not represent a pure “top-​down” approach to language planning,
but rather, it declares the intention to consider the language attitudes of ordinary
speakers (especially in its concept of norm).
I see ideological elements of the theory of language cultivation and standard
language especially in its antipurism, prescriptivism and the effort to cultivate thestandard language, which is understood as its improvement (Havránek 1932), as
well as in the concept of Standard Czech as a register with higher social prestige
used in situations with higher communicative function and connected with theconcept of linguistic correctness (Nebeská 2016b, 2016c; cf. Homoláč & Mrázková
2014); this gives the standard a higher value than the other registers (cf. diversely
defined standard language ideology in Milroy 1999; Kroskrity 2004: 502 f.; de Bres
2013: 66; Lanstyák 2017: 305). Therefore, this language cultivation program isreferred to hereafter as the ideology of language cultivation.
In line with their orientation on the language cultivation ideology the LCC
linguists strive to promote the solution to communication problems in accordance with the language norm. However, as it can be difficult to investigate anorm under time pressure during a phone interaction, the LCC advisers gain
their findings about the norm mainly indirectly, from existing codification andfrom various language data, such as the frequency of language items in different communicative genres. The influence of the ideology of language cultivation in LCC interactions manifests itself in the use of its basic terms bylinguists, such as standard language, codification, language norm, functionality,
systemicity, etc., and in the application of its principles, such as the rejectionof purism, the reference to codification and the language norm and others (see,e.g., ­example 6 below). In various interactions, these elements are found tovarying degrees, depending on the elaboration of expert opinion that is primarily related to the complexity of the query: simple, repetitive questions areoften answered without (longer) explication, while in the case of new, not yet
described language problems, the explication is longer, it contains more sophisticated argumentation, in which the language ideology of the LCC linguist canbecome more visible. Within the ideology of language cultivation, various sub-​ideologies can be identified in evaluating particular language items, e.g., ideology of normativity or systemicity.
In addition to the language cultivation ideology, other conceptualizations oflanguage are also occasionally manifested in the LCC discourse, e.g., the ideology

Divergent interests and argumentation79of the need of representation of gender equality in language (Nekvapil & Sherman
2013: 86), the ideology of (politically) correct language7 and others. In general, theideologies related to language regulation (language norm) or evaluation of specificlanguage items are the most common in LCC statements, because compliance withthe standard is the subject of most queries.
On the side of the inquirers, the spectrum of language ideologies is considerably
wider: from sharing the language cultivation ideology to the widely held ideology oflanguage decline (cf. Lanstyák 2017: 282), ideology of beautiful (Czech) language (cf.
Nekvapil & Sherman 2013: 112) to linguistic purism (see ­example 12), etc.

5 I nterests
Interests can be defined as “aspirations for a certain state of affairs that is favorable tothe subject” (Neustupný 2002: 3). According to Jernudd and Neustupný, a full analysis
of different interests of social actors participating in the language management procesis necessary (Jernudd & Neustupný 1987: 82). For this reason, I will try to describe thetypical interests of the LCC interaction participants.

5.1 I nquirerʼs interests
The inquirers calling the LCC usually ask for advice concerning the use of a language
item or some aspect of the Czech language: e.g., the spelling of a word, stylistic
marker of a grammatical element, the semantic difference between two words, etc.
The inquirers evaluate their own lack of knowledge of respective language norms
negatively. This can be a case of pre-​interaction management as well as post-​interaction management: either the inquirers anticipate a future language problem, i.e.,their own deviation from a norm and its negative evaluation by recipients, and try
to prevent it, or they are not sure whether a linguistic item in a past interaction wasused correctly, which is why they are asking the LCC for advice (cf. Beneš, Prošek,
Smejkalová & Štěpánová 2018). However, even in cases of post-​management the
speaker can consider some future action, such as the correction of the mistake or an
apology, hence the post-​management becomes entwined with the pre-​management
and the boundary between them appears to be fluid. Both types of language management also appear in the following example:

7

For the ideology of the need of representation of gender equality in language see,e.g., the recommendation to use the gender-​neutral address Vážení členové, vážené
členky předsednictva (‘Dear members /​masc./​and members /​fem./​of the governing
board’) instead of generic masculine address Vážení členové předsednictva (‘Dear
Members /​masc./​of the governing board’) (interaction 5414). For the ideology of(politically) correct language see, e.g., the recommendation to use the term Rom(‘Romany’) instead of Cikán (‘Gypsy’) (interaction 7722).

80

Jakub Kopecký
Example 1 (interaction 6570)8(INQ =​inquirer)
INQ: […] teďka dělám […] dabing dokumentárního filmu, o Montriolu. jak vyslovovat
Montriol.
[…]
INQ: […] tak poslouchá ček i zprávy třeba. […] eh i Česká televize má kolikrát hrozný
lapsusy. takže jako to ček nemůže brát za bernou minci. ale (.) když de vo sport,
tak je vždycky Montriól, a když de vo město, tak je to takový jako (.) eh eh totam střídaj no.
[INQ: […] I’m doing […] the dubbing of a documentary, about Montreal now. how should
I pronounce Montreal?
[…]
INQ: […] for example, one listens to news. […] eh even Czech Television sometimes
has terrible lapses, so it can’t be taken at face value. but (.) when it comes tosports, so it is always [montrio:l] and when it comes to the city, so it is like (.) eh
eh, it alternates well.]

The inquirerʼs question about how to pronounce the toponym Montreal in the dubbing of a documentary film is a typical case of pre-​interaction management. Later,
the speaker refers to her knowledge (noting) of the usual pronunciation of thename in various Czech television programs, that is, the interaction also includes
elements of post-​management of the problematic item.
Despite the interrogative character of his/​her utterance, the inquirer often has
some knowledge of the item he/​she is asking about (see the e­ xample 1 above) and
can have a hypothesis about the problem, e.g., considers one option to be corrector evaluates a language item in a certain way. Since the inquirer wants to avoid
deviating from a norm, he/​she intends to verify his/​her knowledge with the help of
the LCC (see, e.g., e­ xamples 2, 3 or 10 below). In the case of post-​interaction management, for example, the speaker has used a language item in discourse and ischecking whether it was correct. Obviously, the inquirer hopes that he/​she hasn’t
deviated from a norm.
A frequent motivation for calling the LCC is also an ongoing argument between
the inquirer and someone else (e.g., a co-​worker, a relative; see ­examples 3 and 10
below). The inquirer’s knowledge has been questioned by his/​her opponent, so theinquirer asks the LCC to mediate in the dispute.9
In all of these cases, it is in the interest of the inquirer to solve his/​her language
problem in his/​her favor. Obtaining the LCC’s expert opinion on the problem canbe a means of achieving this goal: the linguistʼs counsel may help the inquirer to

8
9

The transcription conventions are provided at the end of the article.
For the analogical cases in the queries sent to The Language Council of Sweden see
Jernudd (2018: 113 f.).

Divergent interests and argumentation81

select the appropriate language item to reach his/​her communication goal mosteasily, it can help him/​her convince the opponent in a language dispute etc. (forother specific goals the inquirers are pursuing, see the examples below). If theinquirer has a hypothesis or opinion about the language item in question, it is in
his/​her interest for the LCC to confirm his/​her standpoint. Therefore, in this case,
his/​her aim is twofold: (1) to remove his/​her doubts, (2) to have his/​her standpoint
confirmed.
As for the non-​linguistic interests of LCC clients related to the linguistic ones,
LCC interactions usually do not provide enough information, and we can only
learn about them from certain clues. For example, if the inquirer verifies the norm
for the use of a particular language item he/​she needs to use in official communication, it can be assumed that his/​her attempt to be in accordance with the norm
is related to the interest in not threatening his/​her face in front of the intended
recipients or not harming the institution that the speaker represents. A language
mistake in an official situation can undoubtedly pose such a face-​threatening act.
The LCC is often contacted by the inquirers in professions that require intensive
dealing with both written and spoken texts, such as clerks, copywriters, lawyers,scientists and many others. Some of them even work in professions with a certain
degree of linguistic expertise, such as proofreaders, translators or Czech teachers.
People in these occupations face a multitude of language problems they need tosolve. Their linguistic interests are closely linked to their various work-​related
interests, such as the effort to satisfactorily accomplish a given task or order; theseinterests may in some cases also be of an economic nature (e.g., financial penalties
in case of poor work). However, as noted, the details of these non-​linguistic issues
and interests are usually not mentioned in the interactions investigated, their existence and nature can therefore usually only be assumed.
The following example is one of the less frequent cases in which the linguist
learns basic information about the inquirer’s non-​linguistic interests which arevery closely linked to the language problem discussed here. This is a case of a dispute between a company that the inquirer probably represents and the customs
administration:
Example 2 (interaction 4082)
INQ: ono se totiž jedná o: o:. (.) úřední jednání, jedná se o celní delikt, je to (.) ve
spojení s problematikou celní sazební zařazování zboží, a mně de o to jestli jetotiž správně přeloženo drinking glasses, jako nápojové sklo. mně prostě tospojení nápojový sklo příde moc široký, já si myslím, že by tam mělo bejt pouzeskleničky. […][…]INQ: […] my sme narazili na celní na celní delikt, kdy celní správa nám přeřadilazboží, (..) a byly to karafy na víno, a právě je dávaj (.) sem pod to nápojové sklo.
ale ono je to na sto procent špatně. ale nevíme, jak (se) v tom celním deliktu
obhájit, (…) a ja:k to celní správě vymluvit.

82

Jakub Kopecký
[INQ: it i:s it i:s (.) an official act, it is a customs offense, it concerns (.) the issue ofthe customs tariff classification of goods, and the point is whether the phrase
drinking glasses is correctly translated as nápojové sklo. the phrase nápojový
sklo just seems too broad to me, I think there should be only skleničky. […][…]INQ: […] we came across a customs offense, where the customs administration reclassified our goods, (..) they were wine decanters, and they’re just putting them(.) here under the nápojové sklo, but it is a hundred percent wrong. but we do
not know, how to defend ourselves against the customs offense, (…) and ho:w toconvince the customs administration.]

The linguistic interest of this inquirer can be defined as confirming her version of
the translation of the phrase drinking glasses. This interest crosses over into thelegal and economic spheres fundamentally: Confirming the inquirer’s linguistic
opinion should help the company she represents defend themselves against accusation of a customs offense and possibly reverse it. This is undoubtedly also linked
to the economic interests of the company: Although the inquirer does not mention
them, in general, customs offenses result in financial penalties, so this is probably also the case here. The interaction therefore illustrates the close connection
between language and socio-​economic management performed by the inquirer (cf.
Neustupný & Nekvapil 2003: 186).

5.2 L
 CCʼs interests
I consider the following most important interests of the LCC or, more broadly, the
CLI of which the LCC is part:
1.	To satisfy public demand for language consultancy. In particular LCC
interactions, this is manifested by the linguist’s attempt to answer the inquiry—​to provide the inquirer with the requested language information. The LCC aims
to give professional, well-​founded answers, based on scientific findings. Providing this public service (as well as other language cultivation activities—​cf.
note 10) helps the CLI legitimize its existence and strengthen its position insociety. Thanks to this, the CLI can also conduct linguistic research that is primarily intended for the scientific community.
2.	 To control the discourse on language and thus to maintain and strengthen theexpert role of the CLI. This is also reflected in the division of roles of inquirerand LCC linguist (see above in Section 2), implying on one hand a lay speakerin need of advice and, on the other hand, an expert who is able to provide
such advice. Also, the effort to strengthen the CLI’s expert role undoubtedly
helps (as in the previous point) to legitimize its existence and strengthen its
social position. One of the means of controlling discourse on language is theideology of language cultivation described above, which attributes a significant role to linguistic institutions in the process of language cultivation. They

Divergent interests and argumentation

83

perform it through codification and other language cultivation activities.10 In
this context, a certain harmonizing nature of this ideology should be pointed
out. It partially satisfies the needs of both speakers and CLI linguists: on the
one hand, it responds to a social demand for language regulation,11 on the other
hand, as mentioned, it helps linguists to control the discourse on language.
Moreover, it is based on sophisticated linguistic theory (unlike other regulatory
ideologies such as purism or various primarily politically motivated ideologies)that has retained, despite its considerable age, a substantial degree of scientific recognition and influence (cf. Neustupný & Nekvapil 2003: 340), and thus
it is still acceptable for a significant portion of linguists (cf. Nebeská 2016c oncontroversy). It therefore appears that this ideology does not unilaterally satisfy the interests of the linguistic institution, but rather, seeks to harmonize theinterests of linguists and the public.
3.	 The LCC also aims to gain research data through the provision of language consultancy (see the page LCC Mission on the CLI website). All phone interactions
are recorded so that they can later be analyzed. Unlike the previous twointerests, I have not found any evidence of the influence of this interest on thecourse of the LCC interactions.

5.3 D ivergent interests
As is clear from the previous section, the interests of the participants of the LCC
interactions are not identical, they can diverge or even become incompatible undercertain circumstances. The interests of the inquirer and the LCC correspond primarily in their goals to gain some information about language and to provide thisinformation (which is in line with the CLI language policy). Of course, in somecases the linguist is unable to provide the required information, e.g., when theinquiry is beyond his/​her competence (the problem does not lie in the area of
10 In addition to providing language consultancy, these include, in the case of the CLI,
various popularization and educational activities and providing expert opinions
regarding proper names (see http://​ujc.cas.cz/​exper​tni-​cinn​ost/​index.html). Codification takes the form of publishing language handbooks that are perceived
by the public as binding such as Pravidla českého pravopisu [The Rules of Czech
Orthography], Internetová jazyková příručka [Internet Language Reference Book],
Akademická příručka českého jazyka [Academic Vade Mecum of the Czech Language](Pravdová & Svobodová 2019) and others.
11 We do not have accurate data on how great this demand is in Czech society, however,indirect indications suggest that it is relatively strong. This is evidenced in particularby the considerable public interest in the mentioned codification and popularization
handbooks produced by the CLI as well as in its language consultancy. For example,
Internetová jazyková příručka (see note 10) recorded over 2,000,000 hits from over
142,500 unique IP addresses in March 2019 (see http://​priru​cka.ujc.cas.cz/​?id=​_​stat).
Accessed June 23, 2019.

84

Jakub Kopecký

linguistics), or when there is no available data about the disputed language item.
Nevertheless, the general interest of the LCC is to answer as many queries as possible (to satisfy public demand for language guidance).
There is a danger of potential conflict of interests: If the inquirer prefers one
particular answer, it can happen that the LCC considers another solution to becorrect. The interest of the speaker to be in harmony with his/​her own idiolect canthus conflict with LCC’s interest to be in line with the principles of language cultivation. See, for example, the following excerpt:
Example 3 (interaction 4190)
INQ: s někým se přu, o: významu slova ochočit […] domnívám se že (.) význam slova
ochočit se používá eh víceméně pouze se zvířetem. nikoli s člověkem.
[INQ: I’ve been arguing with somebody abou:t the meaning of the word ochočit(‘domesticate’) […]. I think that (.) the meaning of the word ochočit is used eh
only in connection with an animal. not with a human.]

In her answer, the LCC linguist then quotes dictionaries of Czech (created by the CLI),
saying that a human can also be figuratively “domesticated,” adding that the verb
ochočit can then be used in this meaning. She thus does not confirm the inquirer’s
intuition about the meaning (which is based on the inquirer’s language experience),
but she acknowledges that the opposing party is right. It is not the interest of the
LCC to satisfy one or the other party, but to provide information about the language
item in accordance with the language norm captured in codification handbooks.
The disagreement between the LCC interactants is usually caused by differing
evaluations or explications of language items. These different standpoints can bebrought about by different language ideologies (for examples, see below). As statedby de Bres (2013: 61), language ideologies are “always subject to contestation andchallenge” and the development of many LCC interactions confirms this statement.

6 W
 ays of solving disputes –​using argumentation
If the LCC linguist reacts polemically to the inquirerʼs stance, he/​she usually tries toconvince the inquirer by means of argumentation. Similarly, some inquirers argue
in favor of their stances. There is a close link between argumentation and language
ideologies to which Silversteinʼs definition quoted above also refers: language
ideologies are “articulated by users as a rationalization or justification of perceived
language structure and use” (Silverstein 1979: 193). The actions of rationalizationor justification are part of, or equivalents of argumentation. Language ideologies
are revealed in interactions through argumentation in particular.
I view argumentation as a linguistic action based on accounting for a controversial position with the purpose of convincing listeners of its acceptability or
in order to defend it when it is challenged (cf. Eemeren & Grootendorst 2004: 1;
Kopperschmidt 2000: 59). This definition implies that the argumentation can have
two functions: (1) persuasive or (2) defensive (Kopecký 2018). It is obvious that

Divergent interests and argumentation85

both functions often coincide in interaction, but in LCC interactions the persuasive
function usually prevails (the LCC typically tries to convince the inquirer), while
the defensive function is typical for more competitive types of interaction, such as
TV interviews.
Moreover, the argumentation of the LCC can also serve as a proof of thelinguist’s expert competence and credibility, because the capacity to argue for an
expert standpoint presupposes well-​founded knowledge of the issue.
The following example of argumentation as a part of the language management
process in LCC interaction also reveals the role of language ideologies:
Example 4 (interaction 3725)
INQ: já sem se dočetl v v propagačním letáku, že v Kauflandu prodávají, (.) prodávají
paštikovou bonbonieru. mně to připadá jako jazykový aušus. zmetek. protože
jesi je to bomboniera, tak tam musí být bombony, a ne: paštiky.
LCC: […] to máte stejné, jako když se řiká kulatá špička. (.) to je taky ((laughing))
jazykový aušus. […] to slovo (.) mm získalo další další význam. […] mně by tozas TOlik nevadilo. se přiznám.
[INQ: I have read in an advertising circular that a paštiková bonboniera ((literally “patécandy box”))12 is being sold, (.) is being sold at Kaufland store. ((=​NOTING)) it
appears to me to be junk language. ((=​NEGATIVE EVALUATION)) because if
there is bomboniera ((‘box of candies’)), then there must be bombony ((‘candies’))in it, no:t pâtés. ((=​ARGUMENTATION))
LCC: […] it is the same case as “round tip/​point.” (.) it is also ((laughing)) junklanguage. […] the word (.) mm has gained another meaning. ((=​COUNTER-​
ARGUMENTATION)) […] I have to say that it wouldn’t bother me SO much.
((=​ POSITIVE EVALUATION))]

According to this inquirer, the form of a word, or rather, its word-​formation structure is decisive for its meaning. We can assume that his argumentation “Because
if there is bomboniera (‘box of candies’), then there must be bombony (‘candies’) in
it, not pâtés” is based on the belief: “the original meaning (of this word) should be
respected.” This opinion could be part of the ideology of language purism, however,solely on the basis of this belief, it cannot be unequivocally concluded whether theinquirer reproduces this ideology.
The LCC linguist counter argues with the analogy (cf. Kienpointner 1992: 384 f.)when she points to the phrase kulatá špička ‘round tip/​point’ (of scissors or shoes).
The tertium comparationis is here the logical incompatibility of a collocation(špička ‘tip’ is defined as a pointed end of something which is incompatible withthe attribute kulatá ‘round’) which does not hinder its communicative functionality. Thereafter the linguist describes the item as gaining a new meaning. In thisway, she tacitly refers to the concept of semantic shift and to the belief that the
12 Probably with the meaning ‘box of pâtés’; paštiková =​‘pâté’ (adj.), bonboniéra =​‘boxof candies/​chocolates.’

86

Jakub Kopecký

meanings of words are not untouchable, but can change when necessary, as longas the shift is functional and systemic (regardless of whether the phrase paštiková
bonboniera can really be considered functional and systemic—​this may be questionable, but it is not the subject of this study; what is essential here is the linguist’sreference to the phenomenon of semantic shift). This belief is an integral part of thelanguage cultivation ideology. However, the inquirer is probably not in line withthis ideology, as his argumentation suggests, and therefore the linguist’s counter-​argument is not convincing for him, as the following course of interaction shows.

7 Th
 e outcome of the dispute
In many cases of initial disagreement between the LCC and the inquirer, we cannot
determine with absolute certainty whether the inquirer is finally convinced by the
LCC argumentation and changes his/​her original opinion, or if it is not a sufficient
impulse to change his/​her mind. In such ambiguous cases, the inquirer usually
responds in some way to the statement of the LCC, for example, by thanking the
linguist or producing a receipt token (e.g., aha, cf. Heritage 1984), but the inquirer
does not unequivocally express his/​her consent or disagreement.
Reactions of some inquirers, however, reflect the change in position or theabsence of this change with varying degrees of clarity. Not surprisingly, agreement
is more often signaled, as it represents a preferred response according to conversation analysis (Pomerantz & Heritage 2013). In the case of disagreement with an
opinion of the LCC, it seems that the inquirers tend not to express their position
explicitly. This can be explained by both the speakers’ respect for LCC’s social
authority based on its accumulated expertise and by their politeness towards therepresentative of the institution. In the following part of the study, I try to define
different types of development of the LCC disputes.

7.1 Th e inquirer does not change his/​her original opinion
In some disputes, the inquirer is not convinced by the LCC argumentation or by its
authority, thus the standpoints of both parties continue to be in opposition. Thisdevelopment is illustrated by the following example:
Example 5 (interaction 2387)
INQ: proč se v současné češtině, (.) koncovka ismus, přepisuje: jako izmus.
[…]
INQ:	[…] na jakym základě to vzniklo? protože (.) ta koncovka má svůj význam. a eštěby se to možná dalo pochopit u slov (.) jako je třeba kapitalismus, socialismus,
ale úplně nejhorší je to u slova (.) filoSOfie, (.) což znamená, když se to napíše
se z, tak to neznamená NIC. protože základem je slovo sofistika, a tam prostě
nemůže být z.
LCC:	no ten (.) ten obecný důvod proč to je, je: aby se pravopis přizpůsobil výslovnosti.
INQ: no jo ale (.) když se napíše filoZOFIE, takch je to nesmysl.

Divergent interests and argumentation

87[…]
INQ: […] prostě jakmile se to začne přepisovat, tak (.) vznikají (.) nesmyslná slova.
LCC: (..) mm (toe) eh jako [mmm]INQ:[((laughing))]
LCC: ňáký [()]
INQ:[no nevím] no tak dobře no. takže vy jako myslíte že: je to v pořádku
všecko.
LCC: no samozřejmě. na tom [není na tom není nic špatného.]INQ:[() dě]kuju nashle[danou.]
LCC:[nashle]danou.
[INQ: why is, (.) the ending -​ismus, re-​spelled as -​izmus in contemporary Czech?
[…]
INQ: […] what was it based on? because (.) that ending has its meaning. and it could
still be understood by words (.) like kapitalismus, socialismus, but the worst is
the word (.) filoSOfie, (.) it means, when it’s written with the letter z, it doesn’tmean anything. because it is based on the word sofistika and there simply
can’t be z.
LCC: well (.) the general reason for this is, i:s to adjust spelling to pronunciation.
INQ: but (.) when you write filoZOFIE, it is nonsense.
[…]
INQ: […] when people start to write it differently, (.) senseless words are (.) created.
LCC:(..) mm (itʼs) eh like [mmm]INQ:[((laughing))]
LCC: some [()]
INQ:[well I donʼt know] well ok. so you think eh: it’s all right, all of that.
LCC: of course. there’s nothing [there’s nothing wrong with that.]
INQ:[() thank] you. good[bye.]
LCC:[good]bye.]

The inquirer questions the official orthography of some words originating from
Latin and Greek. The contemporary rules of orthography allow the forms -​izmus
and filozofie (written with the letter z instead of s) which is based on Standard Czech
pronunciation of these items. The inquirer objects that the affected words “losetheir meaning”—​filoZofie “means nothing.” The LCC linguist justifies the current
orthography with the need to adapt orthography to pronunciation. Through thisargumentation, he claims allegiance to the ideology of phonological orthography,
according to which the spelling of the words like filozofie should follow the phonological principle. This ideology is a part of the language policy of the CLI. However,
the inquirer is not convinced by this argument and repeats his objections: filoZofie
is nonsense and other similarly “re-​spelled” words are the same. It is obvious that
this “senselessness” has historical or etymological character: orthographically
adapted words and their components “lose” their original meanings which were
preserved in their original orthographic forms. The inquirer evaluates this etymological meaninglessness as a bigger problem than a synchronic discrepancy

88

Jakub Kopecký

between orthography and pronunciation. Thus, we can categorize him as an advocate of the ideology of lexical orthography, according to which the spelling of thewords like filozofie should follow the lexical principle (cf. Uličný 2013: 120). Afterthe LCC linguist presents no new arguments, the inquirer checks whether his
opponent has not changed his mind through the question “Takže vy jako myslíte,že je to v pořádku všecko.” [So you think it’s all right, all of that.] When the linguist
confirms that he has not, the inquirer quickly (though politely) terminates theconversation. This interactional development shows that the inquirer was not convinced about the opposite of his initial standpoint during the phone interaction.
Failure to reach consensus was caused by the incompatible language ideologies
of both sides, specifically by different ideas about how Czech orthography should
be conceived and what functions it should fulfill. Since neither party withdrew
from its ideological position, it was not possible to reach agreement on the spellingof the particular word filos/​zofie.

7.2 Th e inquirer is convinced by the argumentation of the LCC
In the following interaction, a proofreader of a technical text from the field of agriculture negatively evaluates the term hnojařský pokus (‘fertilization experiment’)
which she encountered in a text, but the LCC linguist approves the word:
Example 6 (interaction 6249)
INQ:	[…] tam mně vadí to citový zabarvení, a takovej ten hanlivej nádech, a doodbornýho textu, jo po-​podle mě nepatří. je to takový moc expre<sivní> na můj
vkus. […]
LCC: […] z čistě slovotvorného hlediska (.) je to eh (..) přídavné jméno utvořeno
náležitě, eh systémově, […] je také eh doloženo ve slovnících, eh výkladových
slovnících češtiny, […][INQ: […] the emotional coloring of the term bothers me, and such a pejorative
tinge, and (it) doesn’t belong in a specialized text, in-​in my opinion. it’s too
expres<sive> for my taste. […]LCC: […] from a purely word-​forming point of view (.) this eh (..) adjective is well,eh systemically formed, […] it is also eh in the explanatory dictionaries ofCzech, […]]The LCC linguist evaluates the terminological usage of the word positively, because
the adjective hnojařský is well formed (criterion of systemicity), it is codified in the
dictionaries of Standard Czech as a term and it has a long tradition (the word isalready in the dictionary Příruční slovník jazyka českého, vol. 1 from 1935 to 1937).13

13 The adjective hnojařský (and in particular the related word hnojárna) is used as an
expressive and pejorative word (with a slightly different meaning) in nonstandard
Czech. The inquirer transfers these connotations also to its terminological usage.

Divergent interests and argumentation

89

The inquirer is convinced by these arguments and she re-​evaluates the word. Thereare clear signals of the acceptance of LCC argumentation in her turns:
Example 7 (interaction 6249)
INQ:	[…] vono se to opravdu asi v odbornym textu snese. […] ten uživatel tohoodbornýho textu primárně nemá tyhlety asociace, který mám jako laik. […][INQ:	[…] it can really be tolerated in a technical text. […] the user of a technical text
doesn’t primarily have the associations, that I have as a layperson. […]]

And she is even gratified by the proposed solution because she does not need tocorrect the term in the text:
Example 8 (interaction 6249)
INQ:	
[…] to sem ráda, eh to ste mě teda ( ) hrozně potěšil, protože nemusim
doporučovat, nic doporučovat jako. […][INQ:	[…] I am glad, eh you made me then ( ) very happy, because I donʼt have to recommend, recommend anything. […]]The inquirer has thus revised her adjustment plan: instead of wanting to correct
the supposed deviation from a norm, she now wants to cease her activity concerning the word in question.
It is essential that, in contrast to the previous example, there was no ideologicaldifference between the interlocutors in this interaction (as in the case of conflict
between ideology of phonological and lexical orthography etc.). The inquirer did
not agree with the LCC only in the stylistic characteristics of one particular word,
because she lacked knowledge of it as a technical term. Most likely for this reason,and given the convincing argumentation by the LCC, it was possible to achieveconsensus.

7.3 Th e inquirer is convinced more by the LCC’s authority thanby its plausible argumentation
In the previous example there were signs of the acceptance of the LCC argumentation in the inquirerʼs utterances. In the following interaction (­example 9) these signs
are not present. In this interaction, the inquirer asks whether there is a semantic
difference between the words pyšný (‘proud, haughty’) and hrdý (‘proud’). She
considers the word pyšný to be negatively colored, while hrdý is in her opinion
positive or neutral. She has a dispute with a woman who finds the phrase být pyšný
na dítě [to be proud of one’s child] correct, while the inquirer does not.
The LCC linguist does not confirm her standpoint: pyšný has two meanings
according to the dictionary: the first is negative (‘haughty’), the second is synonymous to hrdý, and so it is positive. The inquirer reacts as follows:90

Jakub Kopecký
Example 9 (interaction 5776)
INQ:	[…] takže: jako nakonec pravdu měla. […] ale (.) já prostě to pořád tak cítím
jako že už (.) už jenom od toho pyšná princezna. pýcha předchází pád. prostě: eh
eh tak jako: to cítím že: mně to slovo se prostě nikdy nelíbilo. abych ho jakopoužila třeba: […][INQ:	[…] we:ll she ((=​her opponent)) was right in the end. […] but (.) I still feel thatlike that even just (.) even just from pyšná princezna ((‘the proud princess’)).
pride comes before a fall. in sho:rt eh eh so the:n I still feel tha:t I have never
liked the word enough to use it or so: […]]

Thus, she accepts the LCC verdict (she admits her opponent “was right”), nevertheless she feels the need to express her own, different view, which she argues forby using examples of negative use of that term (which is not inconsistent with theopinion of the LCC, which does not exclude the negative use). At the end of theinteraction the inquirer makes sure that she has understood the LCC statement
properly: “takže: vlastně v tom kladném se to jako může použít, jo?” [so, it actually
can be used positively, right?]. My interpretation of these utterances is that theinquirer accepts the standpoint of the LCC, although it is incompatible with her
own understanding of the word, which excludes the use of its positive meaning‘proud.’ It is not clear which part the argumentation plays in this process (changeof her standpoint), because she does not react to it explicitly. It is therefore possiblethat the authority of the LCC has a decisive influence here.
The following example illustrates the role of LCC authority more clearly. As in
the previous case, the starting point here is the dispute between the inquirer andher interaction partner that the LCC should decide:
Example 10 (interaction 6296)
INQ:	[…] eh: my sme s manželem měli takove:j dneska menší rozkol, a: eh: já semříkala, že (.) jesi tedy můžu, eh tak předvčírem, a předevčírem, že to je (..) ehkaždý jiný. je to pravda? nebo neni.
LCC: […] obě ty slova: znamenají totéž, (.) eh m [ten den]INQ:[mhm,]
LCC: před včerejškem, (.) a:
INQ: mhm,
LCC:	(..) a: obě: podoby se hodnotí jako: spisovné. jen tedy s tím rozdílem, že: eh
podoba předvčírem, eh se užívá výrazně řidčeji: než ta podoba předevčírem. ta
je mnohem obvyklejší.
INQ:	[…] dobrý. tak to sem chtěla vědět, takže sem <prohrála> (.) sá[zku, já vám]
LCC:	
[((laughing))]
INQ:	mockrát děkuju, ((laughing)) [že ste mi to objas]nila.
LCC:	
[nemáte zač.][INQ:	[…] eh: we had a so:rt of minor argument with my husband today, a:nd eh: I
said that (.) if I can, eh so předvčírem, and předevčírem, that there is (..) eh adifference between them. is it true? or is not.

Divergent interests and argumentation

91

LCC: […] both wo:rds mean the same, (.) eh m [the day]INQ:
[mhm,]
LCC: before yesterday, (.) a:nd
INQ: mhm,
LCC:	(..) a:nd bo:th forms are considered li:ke standard. only with the difference, tha:teh the form předvčírem, eh is used much less often than the form předevčírem.
that one is much more common.
INQ: […] ok, thatʼs what I wanted to know, so I <lost> (.) the [bet, I thank]
LCC:[((laughing))]
INQ: you so much, ((laughing)) [for explaining it] to me.
LCC:..
[youʼre welcome.]]The very fact that the inquirer turns to the LCC to decide a language dispute withher husband indicates that she probably attributes a certain degree of authority to
it. The outcome of this interaction shows that this authority is relatively strong: asin the previous example, the LCC linguist acknowledges that the opposing party isright and she does not confirm the inquirer’s assumption that there is an (unspecified) difference between the two variants of the word. The inquirer accepts thisverdict without objection, simply noting that she lost the bet. Unlike the previous
example, the linguist does not argue for her opinion in this interaction, she merely
states that there is allegedly no stylistic or semantic difference between the twowords. Her statement is probably based on codification handbooks, as is usualin the LCC, but she does not explicitly cite them. Since the inquirer signals theacceptance of the LCC opinion, it can be concluded that she was convinced by theauthority of the linguistic institution.

8 A uthority ascribed to the LCC by inquirers
As mentioned above, the influence of the LCC is not based on any legal regulationthat would make the LCC verdicts enforceable. In other words, this institution has
no “power” in the sense defined by Max Weber (1978: 53): “the probability that one
actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own willdespite resistance […].” If an LCC linguist wants to push the implementation of a
specific adjustment through, he/​she must convince the inquirer in a non-​violent
manner.
However, if we define power more generally, as a “capacity to implement one’s
interests” (Neustupný 2002: 3), then the LCC cannot be denied a certain degree ofpower. Compared to ordinary speakers, the LCC is definitely in a better position
to influence the language practices of other speakers and to promote its language
ideologies, because it is endowed with an authority given by its expertise. The typeof authority some inquirers ascribe to the LCC (or rather to the CLI), as becomes
evident in certain parts of the analyzed interactions, can be specified as theauthority by expertise (knowledge) or expert authority. As Michel Foucault points
out, knowledge-​production is a process that is closely linked to power relations:

92

Jakub Kopecký
We should admit that […] power and knowledge directly imply one another; that
there is no power relation without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge,
nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time power
relations. (Foucault 1995: 27)

Many inquirers voluntarily accept the standpoints of the LCC on the groundsof its presupposed expert competence (expertise) and/​or on the grounds of theargumentation presented, by which the LCC proves its competence (expertise).
In some cases, the inquirers accept the standpoints of the LCC, even though they
are inconsistent with their own language intuition (see ­examples 9 and 10). Other
proof of this authority includes interactions where the inquirers ask the LCC tointervene in the language practice of some speakers or (more often) some organizations, especially the media, whose language usage they criticize. These inquirers
are usually aware of the fact that the CLI has no coercive power, since there is no
language law in the Czech Republic, nevertheless they ask the LCC to intervene on
the grounds of its social authority based on its expertise, particularly in the formof educating the public about language.
In the following example the speaker complains of misuse of grammaticalendings by different speakers in the public space. After the description of the criticized phenomenon, the inquirer asks a question about the possibility of the CLI
performing a specific adjustment:
Example 11 (interaction 3781)
INQ: […] já bych se chtěl teda zeptat (.) obecně, jestli (.) jako jazyk jako Ústav pro
jazyk český, já vim že nemáte kompetence. ale jesi se aspoň nesnažíte a nemáte nějaké
(.) možnosti, jak ( ) prostě šířit trošku osvětu. […][INQ: […] so I would like to ask (.) in general, whether (.) as the Czech Language Institute, I know you have no competencies. but whether you at least try and have some(.) options, to ( ) spread a little education for the public. […]]In the following example, the inquirer makes an even stronger appeal to the CLI
to use its authority to “protect the Czech language.” This purism-​oriented speakercriticizes the use of the originally German word kurzarbeit in Czech and headvocates the following form of institutional management of loanwords:
Example 12 (interaction 295)
INQ: […] můj názor jako občana, eh mysim si že tydlety slova by měl Ústav pro jazykčeský (.) eh hledat, nebo: prostě: (.) registrovat, což se tedy děje, [ale měl]LCC:
[děje]
INQ: by je měl by je řešit. měl by (.) dát občanům doporučení jaký slovo (.) eh používat.
nutit se to nedá, ale měl by oficielně napsat vážení občané, místo tadydletoho
slova kurcarbajt, prostě: doporučujeme používat to a to slovo. […]Divergent interests and argumentation

93[INQ: […] my opinion as a citizen, eh I think the Czech Language Institute should(.) eh search for, o:r simply: (.) register these words, which is what happens,[but it should]
LCC: [this is happening]
INQ: it should deal with them. it should (.) give people a recommendation of whichword (.) eh to use. they can’t be forced, but it should issue an official written
statement dear citizens, instead of this word kurzarbeit, we just recomme:ndthat you use such-​and-​such a word.]

As mentioned, the distribution of knowledge is closely connected with power, according to Foucault (1980, 1995). This also implies a relationship of interdependence between authority and argumentation. The linguist’s arguing in individualinteractions helps build and maintain the LCC authority, since the use of plausible arguments is proof of the expertise and scientific character of the submitted
language statements. On the other hand, authority helps the LCC to promote its
language ideologies, to influence the inquirer in their acceptance, consequently
increasing the persuasiveness of its argument. This is possible because argumentation lies in the transfer of acceptability from the indisputable argument to the
problematic position (cf. Kopperschmidt 2000: 80 f.), so a prerequisite for successful argumentation is the sharing of some basic beliefs and attitudes by theinteractants. In the case of discussion on language or language management, thesebasic beliefs are language ideologies. Thus, although Habermas (1981: 52 f.) speaksof “zwangloser Zwang des besseren Arguments” (non-​violent force of the better
argument), this does not mean that argumentation is possible only if all power relations between the interaction partners are suspended. On the contrary, a certain
type of speaker’s non-​violent power (authority of knowledge/​expertise) can support the persuasiveness of his/​her argument.
As stated earlier, there are also cases in LCC interactions in which the inquirer
does not accept the LCC standpoint (see ­example 5). It is obvious that these
inquirers do not ascribe that kind of authority to the CLI, at least as far as the given
questions are concerned (cf. Beneš, Prošek, Smejkalová & Štěpánová 2018: 136).
These speakers regard their own language competence and evaluating standpoints(or maybe other experts or model speakers and their texts) to be a more reliable
criterion of linguistic correctness.14
Thus, the power of the LCC is not absolute and the legitimacy of its authority is
unstable. It is an authority limited by the different attitudes of different speakers.
The linguist has no guarantee in any interaction that his/​her position will be
accepted. At the beginning of the conversation, the linguist usually does not knowwhat language ideology the inquirer holds and what degree of authority he/​she

14 The model of power field in which the language correctness is elaborated cf. inAmmon (2005), specifically to the role of LCC and its function within this model cf.
Šichová (2017).

94

Jakub Kopecký

attributes to the CLI. Therefore, the LCC authority is re/​negotiated in some way ineach interaction, and the linguists often have to persuade the inquirers.
It is obvious, therefore, that different speakers attribute different roles to the
CLI, and in connection with this, they also have a different perception of how
the Czech language as a whole should be managed in terms of corpus planning.
The first group, the representatives of which are the inquirers from ­examples 9
and 10, considers the CLI to be an authoritative body whose statements should
be respected and followed by speakers. In case of a discrepancy between their
linguistic intuition and the LCC verdict, these speakers incline toward the LCC
opinion. As they see it, standard language is an entity, the use of which should becontrolled from above (ideology of interventionism; Lanstyák 2017). Organizedlanguage management is therefore, in their view, superior to simple language management.
The second group of speakers, represented here by the inquirer from e­ xample 5,does not consider the CLI to be an expert authority whose language statements
should be respected under all circumstances. In case of a discrepancy between theirlanguage intuition and the LCC verdict, these speakers rely on their own judgmentof language items. These speakers do not accept the language ideologies of the CLI,
but rather, maintain their own ideologies (such as widespread language purism).
Typically, the recorded interactions do not contain unambiguous indicators ofwhether this rejection of the CLI’s authority is based on the ideology of language
liberalism/​democratism according to which evaluations and adjustments of individual speakers are superior to institutional management, or on the ideology oflanguage interventionism (cf. Lanstyák 2017). In the latter case, the inquirers
would prefer authoritative organized management of Czech, but they would notagree with language attitudes and policy of the CLI (for many of them, they may
be too liberal) and therefore the institution would lack legitimacy as a language
authority for them.
We can summarize that the strength of the LCC authority is primarily decided
by the inquirers, depending, among other things, on what language ideologies theyhold and the role they attribute to the LCC. Whether authority is assigned to the
LCC can also be influenced by the degree to which the LCC argumentation is convincing.

9 C onclusion
In this study, I have analyzed one type of interaction in which simple and organized management are often intertwined: institutional phone interactions between
the LCC and its clients that are motivated by speakers’ language problems arisingin everyday interactions; in some cases, the inquirers are also actors of institutional management that deals with more complex language issues (see Section 3).
The basic interest of inquirers is to solve their language problem in a satisfactory manner, and they involve the LCC in attempting to achieve this goal. Thislinguistic interest may be closely linked to their non-​linguistic interests, e.g.,Divergent interests and argumentation95

economic, however, inquirers usually do not provide enough information about
these. The basic interest of the LCC is to provide language consultancy in accordance with the language policy and ideologies (esp. the language cultivation ideology) of the CLI, thereby controlling the discourse on language and strengthening
the expert role and social position of the CLI. Thus, the objectives of both parties
of LCC interactions are not identical. Rather, they only overlap partially, and as
a result the LCC may in some cases suggest a solution to the presented language
problem which is not in accordance with the inquirer’s interests.
Focusing on interactions in which there is a conflict of opinions and interests,
I examined whether the linguist was able to convince the inquirer of the proposed adjustment plan and the role that argumentation as well as differences
or agreement between the language ideologies of the interactants played in thisprocess. The success of this linguist’s effort depended mainly on two factors: thedegree of authority attributed by the inquirer to the LCC (its type can be specified
as the authority of knowledge or expertise) and the degree to which the LCC argumentation was convincing. At the same time, a relationship of interdependence
was identified between authority and argumentation.
As for the strength of LCC authority, the analysis has shown that it is unstableand dependent on different inquirers’ language ideologies and their attitudes to therole of linguistic institutions. Statements about the social reputation of the CLI andgeneral respect for its linguistic opinions should therefore be taken with caution.
The language ideologies of Czech speakers, including opinions on the organizedlanguage management of Standard Czech, cannot be considered a homogeneous
whole, but rather, must be viewed in light of their diversity.

Appendix: Transcription conventions
[xx]
?
.
,
:
(.)
(..)
(…)
()
(xx)
((xx))[…]<xx>
filoZOFIE

overlapping speechrising intonation
falling intonation
continuing intonation
prolongation of the previous sounda short pause
a longer pause
long pause
no words could be distinguished in the talk within single parenthesis
items enclosed within single parenthesis are in doubt
notes of the authora part of the transcript omitted
laughter during the utterance

capital letters indicate emphasis

96

Jakub Kopecký

Acknowledgments
The research for this chapter was supported by the NAKI II grant of the Czech
Ministry of Culture No. DG16P02B009 (Access to a Linguistically Structured Database of Inquiries from the Language Consulting Center).

References
Ammon, U. (2005) Standard und Variation: Norm, Autorität, Legitimation [Standard
and variation: Norm, authority, legitimation]. In L. Eichinger & W. Kallmeyer(eds) Standardvariation: Wie viel Variation verträgt die deutsche Sprache?
[Standard Variation: How much Variation does German Tolerate?]. Berlin &New York: De Gruyter, 28–​40.
Beneš, M., Prošek, M., Smejkalová, K. & Štěpánová, V. (2018) Interaction between
language users and a language consulting centre: Challenges for language
management theory and research. In L. Fairbrother, J. Nekvapil & M. Sloboda(eds) The Language Management Approach: A Focus on Research Methodology.
Berlin: Peter Lang, 119–​140.
Blommaert, J. (2006) Language policy and national identity. In T. Ricento (ed)An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method. Malden, Oxford &Carlton: Blackwell, 238–​254.
Cooper, R. L. (1989) Language Planning and Social Change. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Daneš, F. (1987) Values and attitudes in language standardization. In J. Chloupek &J. Nekvapil (eds) Reader in Czech Sociolinguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,
206–​245.
de Bres, J. (2013) Language ideologies for constructing inclusion and exclusion: Identity and interest in the metalinguistic discourse of cross-​border workers in Luxembourg. In E. Barát, P. Studer & J. Nekvapil (eds) Ideological Conceptualizationsof Language: Discourses of Linguistic Diversity. Frankfurt on the Main: Peter
Lang, 57–​83.
Eemeren, F. H. van & Grootendorst, R. (2004) Systematic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-​Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Foucault, M. (1980) Power/​Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–​
1977. New York: Pantheon Books.
Foucault, M. (1995) Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books.
Habermas, J. (1981) Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns [Theory of Communicative Action]. Vol. 1. Frankfurt on the Main: Suhrkamp.
Havránek, B. (1932) Úkoly spisovného jazyka a jeho kultura [Tasks of the standard language and its culture]. In B. Havránek & M. Weingart (eds) Spisovná

Divergent interests and argumentation

97čeština a jazyková kultura [Standard Czech and Language Cultivation].
Praha: Melantrich, 32–​84.
Heritage, J. (1984) A change-​of-​state token and aspects of its sequential placement.
In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (eds) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 299–​345.
Homoláč, J. & Mrázková, K. (2014) K stylistickému hodnocení jazykových
prostředků, zvláště lexikálních [On the stylistic classification of linguistic (particularly lexical) items]. Slovo a slovesnost 75 (1), 3–​38.
Internetová jazyková příručka [Internet Language Reference Book]. On WWW at
http://​priru​cka.ujc.cas.cz/​. Maintained by the Czech Language Institute, Czech
Academy of Sciences. Accessed June 23, 2019.
Jernudd, B. (2018) Questions submitted to two language cultivation agencies in
Sweden. In L. Fairbrother, J. Nekvapil & M. Sloboda (eds) The Language Management Approach: A Focus on Research Methodology. Berlin: Peter Lang, 101–​117.
Jernudd, B. H. & Neustupný, J. V. (1987) Language planning: For whom? In
L. Laforge (ed) Actes du Colloque international sur l’aménagement linguistique /​Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Language Planning. Québec: Les
Presses de L’Université Laval, 69–​84.
Kienpointner, M. (1992) Alltagslogik: Struktur und Funktion vonArgumentationsmustern [Everyday Logic: Structure and Function of Argument
Patterns]. Stuttgart & Bad Cannstatt: frommann-​holzboog.
Kimura, G. Ch. (2017) The role of language ideology in norm negotiation. Working
Papers in Language Management 2. On WWW at http://​lan​guag​eman​agem​ent.
ff.cuni.cz/​sys​tem/​files/​docume​nts/​wplm-​02_​kim​ura.pdf. Accessed July 30, 2018.
Kopecký, J. (2014) Přechylování příjmení v češtině jako případ jazykového
managementu [Derivation of feminine surnames in Czech as a case of language
management]. Slovo a slovesnost 75 (4), 271–​293.
Kopecký, J. (2018) Argumentace v jazykové interakci [Argumentation in linguistic
interaction]. Slovo a slovesnost 79 (4), 322–​344.
Kopperschmidt, J. (2000) Argumentationstheorie zur Einführung [Argumentation
Theory for Introduction]. Hamburg: Junius.
Kroskrity, P. V. (2004) Language ideologies. In A. Duranti (ed) A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology. Malden, Oxford & Carlton: Blackwell, 498–​517.
Lanstyák, I. (2017) Jazykové ideológie (všeobecné otázky a glosár) [Language
ideologies (general questions and glossary)]. In I. Lanstyák, G. Múcsková &J. Tancer (eds) Jazyky a jazykové ideológie v kontexte viacjazyčnosti na Slovensku[Languages and Language Ideologies in the Context of Multilingualism in Slovakia]. Bratislava: Univerzita Komenského v Bratislave, 251–​307.

98

Jakub Kopecký

LCC Mission. On WWW at http://​ujc.cas.cz/​jazyk​ova-​pora​dna/​co-​je-​jazyk​ova-​pora​
dna.html. Maintained by the Czech Language Institute, Czech Academy of Sciences. Accessed June 23, 2019.
Milroy, L. (1999) Standard English and language ideology in Britain and the UnitedStates. In T. Bex & R. J. Watts (eds) Standard English: The Widening Debate.
London & New York: Routledge.
Miyazaki, S. (2001) Theoretical framework for communicative adjustment inlanguage acquisition. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 11 (1), 39–​60.
Nebeská, I. (2016a) Jazyková norma [Language norm]. In P. Karlík, M. Nekula &J. Pleskalová (eds) CzechEncy –​Nový encyklopedický slovník češtiny [CzechEncy –​New Encyclopaedia of Czech]. On WWW at https://​www.czeche​ncy.org/​slov​
nik/​JAZYKO​VÁNO​RMA. Accessed July 30, 2018.
Nebeská, I. (2016b) Jazyková správnost [Linguistic correctness]. In P. Karlík,
M. Nekula & J. Pleskalová (eds) CzechEncy –​Nový encyklopedický slovník češtiny
[CzechEncy –​New Encyclopaedia of Czech]. On WWW at https://​www.czeche​
ncy.org/​slov​nik/​JAZYKO​VÁSP​RÁVN​OST. Accessed July 30, 2018.
Nebeská, I. (2016c) Teorie spisovného jazyka [Theory of standard language]. In
P. Karlík, M. Nekula & J. Pleskalová (eds) CzechEncy –​Nový encyklopedický
slovník češtiny [CzechEncy –​New Encyclopaedia of Czech]. On WWW at
https://​www.czeche​ncy.org/​slov​nik/​TEORI​ESPI​SOVN​ÉHO JAZYKA. Accessed
July 30, 2018.
Nekvapil, J. (2008) Language cultivation in developed contexts. In B. Spolsky &F. M. Hult (eds) The Handbook of Educational Linguistics. Malden, Oxford &Carlton: Blackwell, 251–​265.
Nekvapil, J. (2012) From language planning to language management: J.
V. Neustupný’s heritage. Media Komyunikēshon kenkyū /​Media and Communication Studies 63. Sapporo: Hokkaido University, Research Faculty of Media andCommunication, 5–​21.
Nekvapil, J. (2016) Language Management Theory as one approach in Language
Policy and Planning. Current Issues in Language Planning 17 (1), 11–​22.
Nekvapil, J. & Sherman, T. (2013) Language ideologies and linguistic practices: Thecase of multinational companies in Central Europe. In E. Barát, P. Studer &J. Nekvapil (eds) Ideological Conceptualizations of Language: Discourses of Linguistic Diversity. Frankfurt on the Main: Peter Lang, 85–​117.
Nekvapil, J. & Sherman, T. (2015) An introduction: Language Management Theory
in Language Policy and Planning. International Journal of the Sociology ofLanguage 232, 1–​12.
Neustupný, J. V. (2002) Language and power into the 21st century: A paper for theInternational Conference on Language and Empowerment, Malaysian Associationof Modern Languages, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, April 11–​13, 2002. On WWW
at http://​lan​guag​eman​agem​ent.ff.cuni.cz/​bibli​ogra​phy. Accessed June 23, 2019.

Divergent interests and argumentation

99

Neustupný, J. V. & Nekvapil, J. (2003) Language management in the Czech Republic.
Current Issues in Language Planning 4 (3/​4), 181–​366.
Pomerantz, A. & Heritage, J. (2013) Preference. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (eds) The
Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-​Blackwell, 210–​228.
Pravdová, M. & Svobodová, I. (eds) (2019) Akademická příručka českého jazyka[Academic Vade Mecum of the Czech Language]. 2nd expanded edition.
Praha: Academia.
Pravidla českého pravopisu [The Rules of Czech Orthography]. Praha: Academia, 2005.
Příruční slovník jazyka českého [Concise Dictionary of the Czech Language]. Vol.
I. Praha: Státní nakladatelství, 1935–​1937.
Prošek, M. (2020) Processes of language enquiries: The case of the Prague Language
Consulting Service. In G. Ch. Kimura & L. Fairbrother (eds) A Language Management Approach to Language Problems: Integrating Macro and Micro Dimensions.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 197–​213.
Prošek, M. & Smejkalová, K. (2011) Kodifikace –​právo, nebo pravomoc? [Codification –​right or mandate?] Naše řeč 94 (5), 231–​241.
Šichová, K. (2017) K fenoménu správnosti a standardu ve výuce češtiny pro cizince[On the phenomenon of correctness and Standard Czech in teaching Czech forforeigners]. In M. Nekula & K. Šichová (eds) Variety češtiny a čeština jako cizíjazyk [Varieties of Czech and Czech as a Foreign Language]. Praha: Akropolis,
207–​246.
Sidnell, J. & Stivers, T. (eds) (2013) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Chichester: Wiley-​Blackwell.
Silverstein, M. (1979) Language structure and linguistic ideology. In P. Clyne,
W. Hanks & C. Hofbauer (eds) The Elements. Chicago: Chicago LinguisticSociety, 193–​248.
Uhlířová, L. (2002) Jazyková poradna v měnící se komunikační situaci u nás[Language consulting service in the light of recent communication changes
in the Czech Republic]. Sociologický časopis /​Czech Sociological Review 38 (4),443–​455.
Uličný, O. (2013) K teorii českého pravopisu [The theory of Czech orthography]. In
O. Uličný & M. Prošek (eds) Studie k moderní mluvnici češtiny 5: K české foneticea pravopisu [Studies in Modern Czech Grammar 5: On Czech Phonetics andOrthography]. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého, 119–​121.
Weber, M. (1978) Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley,
Los Angeles & London: University of California Press.
Woolard, K. A. (1998) Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In B. Schieffelin,
K. Woolard & P. V. Kroskrity (eds) Language Ideologies: Practice and Theory.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3–​47.

Stephanie Rudwick

Language politics at Stellenbosch University,
South Africa
Abstract This chapter examines language management processes in the higher education
sector in South Africa as a deeply politicized domain which exhibits complex dynamics ofinterests and power. It primarily discusses how a student movement at Stellenbosch University(SU) embraced a discourse that has accentuated the power of English as the primary academic
lingua franca of the country. This pro-​English interest and discourse is juxtaposed with one
that portrays the Afrikaans language (the previously main language of learning and teachingat SU) as a “tool of exclusion” and in holding on problematic power constellations which area legacy of apartheid. The chapter is based on an analysis of the language politics unfolding
at SU in the years between 2014 and 2016 and it argues that this context provides fruitful
data for research into the socio-​cultural politics of English as an academic lingua franca.
Employing Language Management Theory (LMT) as analytical lens (Jernudd & Neustupný
1987; Nekvapil 2006; Nekvapil & Sherman 2015), I examine why and how macro and micro
language management processes have triggered divisive and conflict-​riddled language politics at SU. While there is continued polarization of interests among students, alumni andlanguage policy makers about the role of English vis-​à-​vis Afrikaans, I would like to demonstrate that according to the LMT model of the micro-​(meso)-​macro-​(meso)-​micro cycle, theinstitutional language management exhibits, unlike some other South African universities, acertain success. There appears to be approximation, albeit restricted, to a complete language
management cycle in a sense that demands of changes in the institutional language practices
and metalanguage discourses at the micro level of SU have significantly informed the decisions
and power dynamics at the macro level of the institution. This ultimately resulted in language
policy changes on the macro level and specific implementations at the micro level.
Keywords Language politics, South Africa, Stellenbosch University, English, Afrikaans,language management cycle

1 I ntroduction
On March 3rd in 2016, a meeting organized by the South African Student Council
Organization took place at Stellenbosch University (SU). About four hundred
students and other university stakeholders came together to critically discuss therole of Afrikaans at the institution. Initiating the meeting, one of the ‘black’1 South
African student council leaders, opened up by saying:1

The four apartheid-​based race categories (African [Black], Colored, Indian and European [White]) continue to serve bureaucratic purposes and are part of everyday

102

Stephanie Rudwick

Black children are brought here [to Stellenbosch University] to be educated, comingwith the dreams of their families, so that they can have a good education, but when
they get here, there are obstacles in their way. This obstacle, first and foremost, isbeing taught in a language that they do not understand. Let’s get this clear, we neversaid we hate or dislike Afrikaans, it is one of the languages of this country, butnever must a language be enforced onto people, never in this country. (my emphasis
in italics)

The student’s emphatic speech resonated with the crowd and there was muchcheering in response. The broader South African language and identity politics
it addresses are intriguing from a range of sociolinguistic and socio-​politicalperspectives. The speech essentially contained a dual message: Firstly, Afrikaans,unlike English which is the language in which the student leader holds his speech,
is not widely understood by African students and secondly, it is seen as politicallyillegitimate to enforce students to learn (in) Afrikaans or any other language forthat matter. Implicit also is that Afrikaans is perceived as a tool of ‘exclusion’ andEnglish is the accepted academic lingua franca for students (although English is
not even mentioned). By emphasizing “this country,” the student allures to thetragedy of the Soweto uprising in 1976 that will be explained in further detailbelow. Suffice it to state at this point: language management discourse in South
African education has always been a much-​politicized domain (Alexander 2004;
Mwaniki 2011; Rudwick 2016), and language politics, in particular at South African
universities, also have a history of being caught in static and technocratic views oflanguage (Hill 2010).
In this chapter, I aim to address how English as a widely desired academic lingua
franca at Stellenbosch (as asserted by the student movement Open Stellenbosch in2015/​16) is not without socio-​political ambiguities. The assertion is not particularly
surprising given that English has been the preferred ex-​colonial language for the
overwhelming majority of African people. This is the case not least because it has
been the primary language of the country’s liberation party (the African National
Congress, ANC) that continues to be in power but also because of its complex
international and academic value and its role as the most common lingua franca
among educated Africans. Even speakers of isiZulu and isiXhosa whose languages
are mutually intelligible (both are part of the Nguni language cluster) are often
heard speaking to each other in English.
Although the language is indisputably linked to British interests and colonialism, as well as educational and economic privilege in South Africa, it is
widely perceived as a relatively ‘neutral’ medium especially if contrasted to Afrikaans. However, even in relation to the official African languages which are often
discourse of most South Africans. Although reluctantly and uncomfortably, I maintain these racial classifications here in order to demonstrate how race matters toSouth Africans. I employ the categories in inverted commas to capture their ambiguity.

Language politics at Stellenbosch University

103

associated with ethnicity English fares quite well. English has been claimed to be anaturalized African language (Kamwangamalu 2007), but this does not necessarily
include a language shift from African languages to English but rather increased
bilingualism in which English might be taking a more dominant and leading role.
I aim to demonstrate how the naturalized status of English has been playing out inthe language politics at SU in recent years. As Kamwangamalu (2019: 11) recently
argued that there is a need to “explore ways in which English, now irrevocably anaturalized African language rather […], can co-​exist with its sister languages, theindigenous African languages, in higher domains of language use, including the
educational system.”
African urban spaces provide rich data on the multiple entanglements ofEnglish and various African languages and the boundaries between so-​called different ways of speaking have often become blurry. Post-​colonial linguistics has
shown the fallacies of Eurocentric scholarship on language as a bounded system
and Herderian ideologies of ‘pure’ languages linked to ‘pure’ nations (Errington
2007; Bauman & Briggs 2003; Beck 2018). Nonetheless, current South African
language politics have re-​asserted the link between language and ethnicity(Makoni 2003; Rudwick 2018). While the complex and ambiguous role of English
is far from benign and uncontested in the South African context (Rudwick 2021),
this chapter aims to show how the perceived and managed role of English as a relatively neutral academic lingua franca has been asserted in power dynamics at SU.
Of course, the academic power of English is also due to its economic power and thesimple fact that good job opportunities are inextricably linked to proficiency in thelanguage (Turner 2015; Posel & Zeller 2015).
In the next section, I provide a brief sociolinguistic background to relevant
language issues in South Africa and the student protests that took place during
2015/​16. Then, I examine the research paradigm of English as a lingua franca (ELF)
for its relevance in the South African context. The section that follows shifts toLanguage Management Theory (LMT) (Jernudd & Neustupný 1987; Nekvapil 2006;
Nekvapil & Sherman 2015) and the focus on interest and power which provides
the analytical lens for examining the case study at hand. The chapter ultimately
shows why and how macro-​, meso-​and micro-​level processes triggered conflict-​
riddled language politics at SU from 2014 until 2016 when the language policy was
officially changed. This text is informed by two ethnographic fieldwork periodsin Stellenbosch during January–​February 2015 and March 2016. For the purposeof this chapter, I also make use of the analysis of Facebook and Twitter postings
during this period. Reflective practices on my position as a ‘white’ European
female researcher also constituted an essential part of the research.

2 B rief socio-​political backgroundIn recent years, the reconciliatory (‘rainbow’) politics of the iconic Nelson Mandela have become increasingly criticized among ‘black’ students who argue that
‘freedom’ was only provided on a political level for African people, but not on an

104

Stephanie Rudwick

economic one (Horáková 2019). The majority of ‘black’ South Africans continue
to live in poverty while the reality of ‘white privilege’ permeates facets of thesociety. Many among the ‘black’ youths feel that Mandela’s reconciliation ‘sold-​
out’ Africans to the economic power of the ‘whites.’
The year 2015 marked a watershed in South African higher education. Initiatedat the University of Cape Town (UCT), the ‘#Rhodes must fall’ (RMF) student campaign sparked off a complex process of countrywide student movements (mostnotable, #FeesMustFall) which had the broader aim to “decolonize education.”
The #RMF campaign succeeded in having the statue of imperialist Cecil Rhodes
removed from UCT premises and the countrywide #FeesMustFall even achieved
an unprecedented government commitment to a zero percent fee increment at all
universities in 2016.
At SU, a predominately African student group founded #Open Stellenbosch, a
movement that was primarily concerned with a language issue: the dominance of
Afrikaans and Afrikaner (‘white’ Afrikaans speakers) indisputable dominance at
the institution and in the town.2 This cause, capturing a sociolinguistic injustice,
was phrased as the complaint that Afrikaans was employed as a “tool of exclusion”
at the institution. It quickly became clear: Afrikaans had not shed its stigma as the‘language of the oppressor’ that it acquired during apartheid. Afrikaans was themother tongue of apartheid architects and most commonly spoken by national
security police of the apartheid state (Giliomee 2003: 14). Most South African school
children were more or less forced to learn Afrikaans and in 1970 the Departmentof Education even enforced a strict 50:50 percent rule for Afrikaans and English as
languages of instruction in ‘black’ schools (Hartshorne 1992). In response to thisdecree, African learners and teachers took to the street in 1976 in order to demonstrate against Afrikaans as a language of tuition. During these events, documented
as the Soweto uprising many African children tragically lost their lives due to ruthless police intervention. A photograph featuring a small ‘black’ boy, named Hector
Pieterson dying in the arms of his older brother shocked the entire world at thetime, triggered further sanctions on South Africa at the time and continues to symbolize until today the atrocities of apartheid.
Today, mother-​tongue Afrikaans speakers make up about 13.5% of the South
African population and the majority of Afrikaans speakers are so-​called ‘colored’(‘mixed-​race’) people, not ‘white’ Afrikaners. However, the variety spoken by
the vast majority of ‘colored’ people is called Kaaps and it is quite different fromthe Afrikaner standard that guides the orthography. Despite the fact that many

2

Against the background that the RhodesMustFall protest initiated the call for decolonization, Dube (2017: 19) aptly remarks that the demand of replacing Afrikaanswith English is quite ironic “in the sense that Rhodes, who is a symbol of everythingcolonial in South Africa, and whom the students would like to obliterate from history, is an iconic figure of the English culture in the whole of Southern Africa —​aculture whose language is English.”Language politics at Stellenbosch University

105‘colored’ people speak a variety of Afrikaans, the language remains stigmatizedamong many ‘black’ South African people who associate it with oppression andinstitutionalized racism. Several studies discussed the strong link between Afrikaans and Afrikaner ethnicity (Blaser 2007; Bosch 2000; Engel 1997; Kriel 2003;
Webb & Kriel 2000). The saliency of the stigma of Afrikaans as the ‘language of the
oppressor’ among ‘black’ South Africans and awareness of the horrors of apartheid is necessary in order to adequately understand socio-​political events that
unfolded between 2015 and 2016 at SU. The primary concern of the Open Stellenbosch collective was that the university did not sufficiently transform since theend of apartheid. And indeed, it cannot be denied that SU continued to represent a
primarily ‘white’ Afrikaans-​speaking, Afrikaner cultural microcosm despite being
officially a public university. Many of the undergraduate programs at Stellenboschwere taught exclusively in Afrikaans and many ‘black’ students have insufficientknowledge of the language because their schooling was largely in English. Thisbackground is important to understand why English hit such fruitful ground in
Stellenbosch in 2015. Given this saliency of English as an (academic) lingua franca
in South Africa I would like to argue that the research field of ELF has relevance in
the South African context and I will briefly turn to this research field below.

3 English as a lingua franca3
The beginning of systematic research on the phenomenon of ‘English as a lingua
franca,’ including the use of the acronym ELF, can be traced back to the early
2000s. The scholars at the forefront of the field (Jenkins 2018; Mauranen 2018;
Seidlhofer 2011) insist that ELF does not exclude English first language speakers
and that it describes a linguistic contact phenomenon between speakers when atleast one of them uses English as a second language. In other words, ELF is nota variety of English that could be “formally defined” but rather “a variable wayof using it” (Seidlhofer 2011: 77), a complex discourse phenomenon so to speak.
The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca is testimony to the fact that
ELF has been a thriving research field for some years, despite much criticism in
the early years of its conception. Its center of research gravity, surprisingly, continues to be Europe and, to some degree, developed countries in Asia. This seems
puzzling given that there are many other places, in particular British ex-​colonial
countries where English lingua franca communication is pervasive. As a result of
not engaging sufficiently with Englishes in ex-​colonies and postcolonial debates,
critical issues in the sociocultural politics of global English have been neglected(Pennycook 2017). It cannot be denied that the overwhelming bulk of ELF work3

For reasons of scope the discussion here merely focuses on selected aspects of ELF
and does not engage with other, similar approaches to English spoken in multilingual
environments, such as English as an International language (EIL, Modiano 2004),
translingualism (Canagarajah 2013), etc.

106

Stephanie Rudwick

has drawn from empirical data collected in the global North and that as such thefield could be termed geopolitically Eurocentric. Pennycook (2017: ix) puts it thisway: “the ELF approach has been able to avoid some of the problems of the World
English focus […] and can open up more flexible and mobile versions of English,”but, at the same time, “it has likewise never engaged adequately with questionsof power.” I would like to add that critical issues around gender, class, ethnicity
and ‘race’ have also not received the attention they deserve. Few ELF studies (e.g.,
Baker 2015, 2018) have conceptualized ‘culture’ in ELF communication more critically and there has been much focus on what might constitute a shared culture
and identity through ELF. Many studies (Jenks 2013 is a noteworthy exception)
continue to highlight the benign status and positive effects of ELF communication
for people. This is problematic in post-​colonial contexts. Given the pervasive multilingualism and the complex power dynamics involving the access to English, it
seems that perspectives from Africa could contribute to a more critical engagementwith what I would consider ‘romanticized’ views about ELF in some scholarship.
This is not to say that previous theorizing around ELF might not also be useful inpost-​colonial settings. Some ELF work (Kecskes 2007; Fiedler 2011) framed ELF asa ‘third space’ invoking the work of Homi Bhabha (2004). The conceptualization of
ELF discourse as a third space is instructive in terms of disrupting formal-​informal
dichotomies that exist in many educational spaces. These conceptualizations canforeground hybridity, fluidity and idiosyncrasies as the ‘norm’ that are in linewith the idea of “multilingualism as the new linguistic dispensation” (Singleton,
Fishman, Aronin & Ó Laoireal 2013). However, at the same time, too narrow a conceptualization based on the positive and communicative status of ELF discourse
might also lead to misguided perceptions that actors in this third space are horizontally located with no hierarchies involved, which is not the case in most South
African English lingua franca contexts.
Therefore, critical perspectives towards some ELF paradigms are important ina place such as Africa where World Englishes scholars have long stressed that
non-​native Englishes are best seen as divergent rather than deficient. And yet,public opinion often perpetuates ideas of Standard English as the ultimate ideal.
‘Black South African English’ (BSAE) has been extensively examined4 but BSAE
is only one of several English lingua franca varieties or similects (Mauranen 2012,2018) playing different roles in the country. Many different English varieties constitute pieces in the complex puzzle of English lingua franca discourse in Africa andthis high variability of Englishes in educational contexts poses a challenge to someconceptualizations of ELF. Certain studies (Hynninen 2016; Mauranen 2011, 2014,2018a) from the ELF university context have already portrayed the complexity
in English as an academic lingua franca but European languages influencing ELF
4Black South African English is a broad research field, see for example De Klerk &Gough (2002), Mesthrie (2006), Makalela (2004), Smit (1996), Van Rooy (2004), Wade
(1996), Mesthrie & Bhatt (2008).

Language politics at Stellenbosch University

107

discourse dominate much of the data (i.e., the ELFA corpus). Furthermore, there
are few ethnographically and, to the best of my knowledge, not a single intersectional approach to sociolinguistic power dynamics in ELF discourse available
yet. Given this volume’s focus on interests and power, I would like to emphasizethat the lingua franca status of English does not simply provide it with neutrality
and allows speakers to be impartial.5 Admittedly, the default function of a lingua
franca is commonly assumed to be that of a tool to solve communication between
speakers of different languages (Sherman 2018: 115) and hence, it often carries a
relative neutrality. Indeed, speakers might opt for a lingua franca because “othercandidate varieties are laden with historical and political connotations and may
signal a power imbalance” (Sherman 2018: 116). While English might be perceived
as more ‘neutral’ than other languages in some contexts, different Englishes spoken
in ELF communication might still be endowed with varying power potentials.
In terms of interest, power and language management, English might well havea more communicative function for one speaker and more identity related aspects
for another. Any event involving English as the world’s primary lingua franca
inherently has consequences for the interlocutors’ ways of being, although thismight not be overtly evident. The dated proposal that English can represent a communicative tool alone (Hüllen 1992) without powers to trigger identity dynamics
and inequality can safely be discarded at this point. In other words, interests andidentities are always there, we are simply not able not to construct identities whencommunicating, whether in English or in any other language. Even if English is
chosen as a lingua franca because of its relative neutrality and communicativevalue rather than as an act of identity, interlocutors nonetheless construct implicit
identities as, for instance, global, communicative, cosmopolitan, educated, British,
American or international people.
The few articles where English is discussed explicitly as a lingua franca in South
Africa either mark its status as “failed” (Balfour 2002) or engage insufficiently with
its sociocultural politics (Khokhlova 2015). Recently, Van der Walt & Evans (2018)
also question the status of ELF in the country and their article is a manifest of how
ambivalent South African researchers continue to feel towards the alleged lingua
franca status of the language. This ambiguity of ELF shall serve as a springboard
towards the more general observations that ‘there are always two sides to one
coin.’ There is no neutral language in the South African context where colonialism,
nativism and many other -​isms play out in complicated ways in the everyday livesof people. But before I turn to more specificities of the South African context, I will
briefly provide the theoretical framework of LMT in relation to interest and power
in English lingua franca discourse.

5

English has been portrayed as a “neutral” language before (House 2014); even insome South African contexts, but to suggest that ELF is “bereft of collective cultural
capital” (House 2003: 560) is removed from the realities of the cultural politics surrounding English in South Africa.

108

Stephanie Rudwick

4 Th e language management approach
Lingua franca English, as a paradigm, is arguably based on a certain ideology, one,for instance, that gives value to the English language as an “international,” “neutral,” and “communicative” medium for people all over the globe. Writing about
ideologies in the framework of LMT, Nekvapil & Sherman (2013: 86) argue that:
language ideologies are not an end in themselves, but rather, they are used as themeans to extralinguistic ends; in other words, their use produces social reality—​
language ideologies, for example, help reproduce the divisions between groups, they
aid in the exclusion of individuals from a specific social or cultural group or, conversely, in the inclusion of an individual in such a group.

The scholars’ comment is illuminating for the South African context. Mechanisms
of inclusion/​exclusion operate in myriad and complicated ways in South Africa
and language ideologies often overlap with socio-​political convictions. At thesame time, the sociolinguistic situation of the country is extremely diverse andthe many hybrid and fluid linguistic practices prevalent raise questions as to what
actually constitutes a language. In recent years, several leading socio-​and applied
linguists have added terminologies such as superdiversity (Blommaert & Rampton2011), translanguaging (Garcia 2009), translingual practice (Canagarajah 2013) or
turbulence (Stroud 2015) in order to provide conceptual tools for the analyses ofincreasing multilingualism in society. In a country with such extensive levels ofmultilingualism (such as South Africa) language management might be considerably more complicated than in linguistically more homogenous territories. Given
that the country has eleven official languages the interests of different language
lobbies, and language policy stakeholders are often quite at loggerheads witheach other.
As for ‘interest,’ Jernudd and Neustupný (1987: 76) suggest in their seminal
paper that ‘interests’ need to be linked to each component of the management
process and they further raise a number of valuable questions, such as where theinterests differ in simple and organized language management, in which stages ofthe process which interests emerge or how group interests might change throughtime and space. They also suggest that linguistic and non-​linguistic interests
shall be differentiated but in the case of South Africa this is extremely difficult.
Language is deeply political in the country and linguistic interests almost always
merge with socio-​cultural or socio-​political interests. Macro level “top-​down”
language management has historical apartheid “baggage”6 and is therefore heavily
politicized. Nekvapil and Sherman (2015) distinguish the metaphors “top-​down”

6

During apartheid the top-​down language policy was providing only official status forthe two ex-​colonial languages, Afrikaans and English. No indigenous language had
official national status, despite the fact that the majority population spoke African
languages. For more detail on South Africa’s language politics, see Webb (2002).

Language politics at Stellenbosch University

109

and “bottom-​up” in the context of language management and conclude: “The ‘top-​
down’ impact is more complex and there is often the work of institutions behindit, which is why it is labeled as ‘macro’ ” (Nekvapil & Sherman 2015: 2). In contrast,“the ‘bottom-​up’ impact may be simpler, often the work of individuals, which is
why it is understood as ‘micro’ ” (Nekvapil & Sherman 2015: 2). South Africa has
a long history of ‘top-​down’ rather than ‘bottom-​up’ language management. As
mentioned earlier, the educational system during apartheid taught Afrikaans andEnglish per decree and African languages were given little space for development.
As for ‘power,’ the link between English and power can be felt everywhere in
South Africa, and in fact in many other African countries. LMT is a useful tool
for analyses in English lingua franca research on the African continent because
the framework highlights how socio-​economic power relations influence linguistic
choices (Sherman 2018: 116). In South Africa, and in fact most of Anglophone Africa, colonialism (and apartheid) complicate simple assumptions about the value of
ELF.7 As a paradigm of LMT organized language management ideally influences
simple language management, and at the same time organized language management results (or rather should result) from simple language management (Nekvapil& Nekula 2006: 324). Multiple processes on a micro level might help a formulation of a macro language policy that feeds back onto the micro level. Although
LMT has been critiqued with the argument that the “micro-​macro duality seems to
imply a certain hierarchy in which macro-​level phenomena somehow take place
on a different plane of existence from micro-​level phenomena” (Hult 2010: 18), in
the context of language planning and policy the two levels seem relevant. I would
argue that it is useful, as LMT does, to distinguish macro-​level management asendowed with larger (political) interests, executive power and serious implementation agency from micro-​level management processes that require organizationand collectivity before they might influence policy implementations on a larger
scale. However, too sharp a distinction between micro and macro might not be
useful when power hierarchies among different language stakeholders are blurry
and uncertain. These considerations of the LMT framework in the analysis of theofficial Language Policy change at SU as it took place in 2016. While differentiating simple (micro) from organized (macro) acts at SU the discussion will showthat there are various spaces in between the two levels. There might be sociolinguistic situations where different micro-​level management processes conflict andform meso-​level management with multi-​level hierarchies. My focus here is on theinterests of students and the power of what could be described as a meso-​or semi-​organized language management emerging: First, individual students, second, a

7

For example, access to so-​called ‘Standard’ English is strongly dependent on socio-​
economic standing of a family, which again is also related to ethnicity and race. Due
to persistent ‘white’ privilege, the African population has had a restricted access towhat is widely perceived to be ‘good’ English, which represents a variety closest to
the ‘Standard’ British English.

110

Stephanie Rudwick

student collective, and third, a shared discourse with actors from the macro level.
Open Stellenbosch students fought for English as the primary Language of Learning
and Teaching at SU and ultimately succeeded in their main demand. The next section describes how language (Afrikaans vis-​à-​vis English) became a terrain of
struggle in Stellenbosch and turned into what has been termed a “war of language”(Giliomee 2009).

5 S tellenbosch University
Since early in the twentieth century, SU had promoted “a distinctly Afrikaansacademic institution” associated with Afrikaner nationalism and ‘white’ racist-​
supremacist politics (van der Waal 2015: 1). From 1930, the institution was almost
entirely Afrikaans speaking and it represented an academic engine behind muchof apartheid ideology. Only in the early 1990s, the university opened (or rather
was forced to open) its doors to all South African students.8 But Afrikaans continued to be the default language in the university and its town where Afrikaners
have put vast financial investments. In the early 2000s, however, and more markedly from 2002 when Chris Brink took over as vice-​chancellor of SU (Brink 2006),
the largely monolingual institution started to transform into one that also offered
English tuition.9 It was during those years when the first taalstryd [language
battle] unfolded. A protest petition fighting to protect Afrikaans against English at
the institution was signed by 3,500 SU staff and students, as well as a letter signedby 143 prominent Afrikaans authors, was presented to the SU Council in 2005 in
an attempt to safeguard the language. Afrikaans became a symbol of Afrikaner
identity politics in the new South Africa and Stellenbosch was arguably among
the most contested battlegrounds. Afrikaans speaking people have, more than any
other ethnolinguistic group in South Africa, complained about lack of support for
their language in the press and various other platforms (Orman 2008). A renowned
Afrikaner historian has employed dramatic metaphors such as the ‘lamb’ [Afrikaans] being eaten by the ‘lion’ [English] (Giliomee 2009). Indeed, for most ‘white’
Afrikaans speakers, language is the primary point of reference in the social construction of their identity and ethnicity. Put succinctly, Afrikaans “acts as a creatorand definer” of Afrikaner ethnicity, Afrikanerdom (Bosch 2000: 52).
From 2007, the university inaugurated a new vice-​chancellor. Russel Botman
was the university’s first ‘colored’ vice-​chancellor, and he tried conciliating thepolarized language lobbies within the institution. On the one hand, he showed89This involved a whole range of complicated socio-​political dynamics that for reasonsof scope cannot be elaborated here (for more detail, see Giliomee 2001, 2003).
All South African universities that were so-​called “Afrikaans universities” converted,
more or less, into bilingual models during the first decade or two after apartheid,
implementing English as the second Language of Learning and Teaching (Du Plessis
2003, 2006; Webb 2010).

Language politics at Stellenbosch University

111

commitment to Afrikaans, but he also allowed English to increasingly enter the
institution. The language policy (LP) revisions of 2007 put an emphasis on multilingualism and make specific reference to safeguarding Afrikaans. Nonetheless,conservative Afrikaners and so-​called taalstreyders [language fighters] regarded
the LP as impeding further on Afrikaans. Botman tragically died in 2014, and it
has been alleged in the media that emotional and psychological pressure (not least
due to polarized language politics at the university) might have contributed to his
untimely sad death.10 In the absence of hard evidence relating to Botman’s passing,
we can only make assumptions about how sensitive and potentially devastating forsome individuals the taalstreyd unfolded at Stellenbosch. Language is a sensitive
issue for many people in South Africa but it is exceptionally emotional for many
Afrikaners who see a threat to their language as a threat to their very existence.
There is an acute concern among Afrikaners that Afrikaans would lose its status
as a language of the higher domains of life (in Fishman’s terms). The ideology of
Afrikaans as a carrier of Afrikaner high culture and as a valuable academic andintellectual tool is prevalent to a noteworthy extent.11
In the wake of the #RMF campaign and other ‘Fallist’ movements in South Africa, student protests started against Afrikaans at SU in early 2015. Initially a small
group of predominately, but not only ‘black’ students founded Open Stellenboschin order to “purge the oppressive remnants of apartheid” (Facebook page). In theSouth African Daily Maverick on 28 April 2015, the collective identified three primary demands:
1.	 No student should be forced to learn or communicate in Afrikaans and all classes
must be available in English.
2.	 The institutional culture at Stellenbosch University needs to change radically andrapidly to reflect diverse cultures and not only White Afrikaans culture.
3.	 The University publicly needs to acknowledge and actively remember the central
role that Stellenbosch and its faculty played in the conceptualization, implementation and maintenance of Apartheid.12

Emphasizing that SU is a public tertiary institution in South Africa and therefore
supposed to provide equal access to all South Africans, members of Open Stellenbosch demanded that the university management reconsidered and revised
the language policy (Stellenbosch University 2014), due to it favoring Afrikaans.
Shortly after the founding of Open Stellenbosch, in August 2015, the university

10 https://​www.dailym​aver​ick.co.za/​arti​cle/​2014-​07-​02-​revea​led-​profes​sor-​botm​ans-​tor​
rid-​final-​week/​#.Wvq​tbS-​B1Bw (accessed 3 April 2019).
11 But more generally, also outside the sphere of Afrikaans politics, language policies in
the South African educational sphere have been shaped often by ideological concerns(Manyike & Lemmer 2014; Rudwick 2017).
12 See: https://​www.dailymaverick.co.za/​article/​2015-​04-​28-​op-​ed-​open-​stellenbosch-​tackling-​language-​and-​exclusion-​at-​stellenbosch-​university/​

112

Stephanie Rudwick

management came further under pressure after a very negative portrayal of theinstitution featured in a documentary entitled Luister [Listen]. The film went
viral on social media and outraged not only South Africans but also internationalviewers. Luister13 is based on personal interviews that deliver a shocking account of
discriminatory, oppressive practices that ‘black’ students endure in Stellenbosch.
While much of the narrative is not about language but violent racism of diverse
nature, some students also describe how Afrikaans is “killing” African students at
SU because their proficiency in the language is inadequate. One student, in particular, describes how the language remains the “language of the oppressor” tohim. Many sentiments brought forward in the film echo what Mabokela (2001: 72)
argued, that is, that “for African students, using Afrikaans as a medium of instruction is like pouring salt into an open wound.”
As a result of Open Stellenbosch and Luister, the macro ‘structure’ of SU language
management started shaking and the institution’s ‘managers,’ executives and VC
became painfully aware that they needed to become proactive in order to counteract a devastating publicity of SU. Between mid-​2015 and mid-​2016, Open Stellenbosch organized countless demonstrations and demanded a clear change in thelanguage policy. The Language Coalition of the Open Stellenbosch movement met
repeatedly with the acting vice-​chancellor, various university administrators, and‘managers’ from the institution. It became clear that the university would have to
make some major concessions in order to pacify the toxic climate that had emerged
through students’ dissatisfaction and the international negative media coverage.
In mid-​2016, the executive management agreed that a new language policy would
be drafted, one in which English (and not Afrikaans) would become the primarylanguage of learning and teaching. Given the stigma of Afrikaans as a ‘languageof the oppressor’ on the one hand, and the strong international value of English
on the other hand, it is not surprising that events in Stellenbosch unfolded in thisway. While it seems that the lingua franca status of English asserted itself at the
University, it is apt to caution that English (es) and English lingua franca academic
discourse are far from ‘neutral’ communication and learning modes in South Africa. I will attempt to illustrate this further below.

6 E
 nglish at Stellenbosch in LMT analysis
Throughout the twentieth century and also in the post-​apartheid years, several
authors have promoted the important role of ELF for the country. But the economic and socio-​political hegemony of English in South Africa also resulted in asmall ‘black’ elite who employs English as a first language and whose members
are no longer proficient in an African language. The overwhelming majority of
13 The documentary is a compelling and quite personal account of thirty-​two students
and one lecturer at SU, available online: https://​www.yout​ube.com/​watch?v=​sF3r​
TBQT​Qk4.

Language politics at Stellenbosch University

113

all ‘black’ South Africans, however, continue to speak an indigenous African
language as so-​called ‘mother-​tongue’ (Census 2011). English serves, in many
contexts and situations as an exclusionary device. The late Neville Alexander, who
was one of the most ardent promoters of multilingualism in South Africa, alsoemphasized the value of English as a linking language in the country. However,he cautioned: “the use of English as a language of tuition at tertiary level becauseof its lingua franca function […] is no guarantee of educational equity” (Alexander
2013: 84). While his warning continues to have currency, the majority of students
in Stellenbosch are either Afrikaans or isiXhosa speaking and from this perspective, English arguably constitutes a kind of compromise, as it is a shared second
language for most.
Some sociolinguists, for instance, have criticized the Open Stellenbosch collective for apparent univocal focus on and preference for English. On an Emailbased list-​server engaging with sociolinguistic issues in 2016, one contributor
described the demands of Open Stellenbosch as “short-​sighted” for demanding
English tuition (rather than a multilingual framework) at the institution. However, members of Open Stellenbosch repeatedly explained on public and social
media platforms that they felt SU had primarily focused on Afrikaans development while hiding under the blanket of multilingualism. Also, support for African
languages (in this case isiXhosa) is arguably also not uncontroversial (at least for‘white’ people) as it draws rejection from at least two lobbies: First, those who
regard English as the ‘only’ future and see vernacular promotion counter-​productive to national progress and second, those who object to the involvement of
non-​‘black’ people in African language and cultural matters (Makoni & Makoni
2009: 116).
Furthermore, it appears that some positions of Open Stellenbosch have been(mis-​) portrayed as perhaps presented too radical by some commentators in the
media and press and on social networks. While certain extremist members ofthe movement might have wanted to see Afrikaans disused at SU in the future,
the Open Stellenbosch collective as present on social media never called for theabolishment of Afrikaans. After all, it needs to be acknowledged that this student
collective has been very diverse and its members also polarized as regards certain
issues, such as gender, race and class. Be that as it may, the interests of the Open
Stellenbosch group were made explicit. The Memorandum of Demands14 publishedon 13 May 2015 read the following:
1.	 All classes must be available in English.
2.	 The use of translators and translation-​devices must be discontinued, as they are
ineffective, inaudible and highlight the place of non-​Afrikaans speaking students
at Stellenbosch as those who do not belong.

14 To view the entire document, see: http://​www.sun.ac.za/​engl​ish/​man​agem​ent/​wim-​
de-​villi​ers/​Docume​nts/​Open%20S​tell​enbo​sch%20M​emo%202​0150​513.pdf.

114

Stephanie Rudwick

3.	 All official and unofficial communication from management, faculty and university departments must be available in English. This includes communication
between faculty and staff, and not simply the communique from management.
4.	 All residence, faculty, departmental and administrative meetings and correspondence must be conducted in English.
5.	 Afrikaans must not be a requirement for employment or appointment to leadership positions.
6.	 The University must stop using isiXhosa as a front for multilingualism when it has
clearly invested minimal resources in its development on campus. Alternatively,
significant investment must be directed at developing isiXhosa on campus.
7.	 All signage on campus must be available in English.

The above demands capture that “access” to all classes in English represents themain prerogative of the collective. Language ideologies manifest themselves in
multiple ways in meta-​linguistic discourse and while two individuals might have
similar attitudes towards one and the same language, the motives behind thosemight be driven by different ideologies. At SU, certain ‘black’ African students
might have rejected Afrikaans simply because they are not proficient in thelanguage, others might reject it on political grounds. Importantly, there are multiple forms of interests and power at play in this setting. As for LMT in reference to Stellenbosch, the usefulness of a rigid distinction between macro-​andmicro-​level management activities must indeed be questioned. In initial analysis,
individual student activities on the ground, students’ behavior towards language,and individual students’ language political demands were seen as the micro-​level
management within an institution. In contrast, activities of the university management, i.e., the vice-​chancellor’s office and language policy makers were regarded
as agents of the macro level. It became quickly clear, however, that some of theactivities at the so-​called (initial) micro level became rather “organized” throughOpen Stellenbosch and were in fact moving into a kind of meso-​and semi-​macro-​level sphere which then was also endowed with collective interests and sufficient
power to enact a change.
Between the years of 2015 and 2016, one could observe, at least to a certain
extent, approximation to a complete LMT cycle in a sense that meta-​linguistic
discourses at the micro level of SU, i.e., Open Stellenbosch language demands sufficiently informed the meta-​discourse and language planning activities on the macrolevel in order to trigger a language policy change. For this to happen, however,the language management as enacted by Open Stellenbosch individual members
needed to become organized and move into a type of semi-​macro sphere wherelanguage management was no longer the work of only individual actors but thatof the collective. Once the Language Coalition of Open Stellenbosch was formed
and once the collective met persistently during 2015–​16 with the university executive in order to have their demands met, they also were able to negotiate change
in the official language policy document. This resulted in the change of status of
Afrikaans vis-​à-​vis English at the institution. The group continuously reported on

Language politics at Stellenbosch University

115

these meetings via their Facebook and twitter accounts. As a result of these negotiations, the SU council approved, on 22 June 2016, a new language policy reflecting
a change in the role of Afrikaans and English at the institution.

7 L
 anguage policy change at Stellenbosch University
In comparing the actual SU language policy documents from 2014 and 2016 (seeStellenbosch University 2014, 2016, available online), a superficial glance alreadyreveals a fundamental difference between the two texts: their lengths. While the2014 document comprises six pages, the 2016 version is twice as long. Each document has an initial heading termed “The essence of the Policy” which marks thefirst significant change between the two versions. The second sentence in the 2014
text states: “The University is committed to the use and sustained developmentof Afrikaans as an academic language in a multilingual context […]” and this isomitted in the revised version. Instead, the current document reads in the lastsentence of this section as “[…] we commit ourselves to multilingualism by using
the province’s three official languages, namely Afrikaans, English and isiXhosa.”
Under the heading “The multilingual context,” the first sentence is scrapped fromthe 2014 version that initially stated: “the University contributes to multilingualism
in such a way that Afrikaans can be used and advanced, while utilizing the value ofEnglish […].” Furthermore, a sentence of the section “Policy principles” appearing
in the 2014 version reading as “The University acknowledges the particular statusof Afrikaans as an academic language and accepts the responsibility to advance
Afrikaans as an academic language” is entirely omitted in the 2016 version. Suffice
it to say, virtually all references specifically to Afrikaans and to its special role in
the institution, which still appeared in the 2014 document, are removed in the 2016
revision.
The scope of this chapter does not allow for providing much more detail of thecurrent Language Policy document; suffice it to quote one of the most significant
passages representing the real policy change from the 2014 version. It reads:
During each lecture, all information is conveyed at least in English and summaries
or emphasis of content are also repeated in Afrikaans. Questions in Afrikaans andEnglish are, at the least, answered in the language of the question [my emphasis initalics].

The above makes it clear that SU has committed itself to a Language Policy thathas English as the primary Language of Learning and Teaching but also makes
provisions for Afrikaans. To recapture the stages in which language managementtakes place: It was noted, initially by individual students and later by Open Stellenbosch as a collective, that privileged Afrikaans usage at the institution was perpetuating social injustices and disadvantaged ‘black’ African students. An interest
group of students, forming into the collective Open Stellenbosch evaluated this as
negative and inadequate for a post-​apartheid public university. Students organized
themselves more systematically as a collective endowed with interests and powers

116

Stephanie Rudwick

and worked on planning an adjustment. With an actual language policy change in
mind, Open Stellenbosch as an initially “bottom-​up” collective formulated a document demanding the university management to respond to their interests. Afterinitial resistance in the executive of the institution, the negative publicity Stellenbosch received combined with public pressure led to the students’ demands being
met and implemented through a new official language policy. The above summaryis only one of many interpretations in line with LMT that could be offered in relation to language issues at SU. Language matters and Afrikaans politics continue
to be contested in many contexts and spaces at Stellenbosch and they will offer
further data for sociolinguistic research.

8 C onclusion
This chapter discussed interests and power dynamics in language policy changes at
a South African university by employing LMT as an analytical tool. There are essentially two arguments that have been brought forward, one imperial, and the othertheoretical. Firstly, English as an academic lingua franca has a strong momentum
at SU due to its dual functions as, first, a ‘communicative tool,’ and second, as arelatively ‘neutral’ lingua franca. I argued that the official language policy change
occurring at SU in 2016 represents an unprecedented case of successful ‘bottom-​up’
language planning at a South African university. It is suggested, that the interest
and power dynamics at Stellenbosch triggered language management processes
which entailed initial micro level language management (individual students’ dissatisfaction with the status quo involving Afrikaans at the institution) to transform
into a semi-​organized, ‘meso’-​level language management (the Open Stellenbosch
collective) in order to inform language management processes at the macro level(i.e., the university executive) and this is where the second argument is formulated: LMT can usefully be applied to language planning dynamics at SU but amore nuanced cycle of micro → meso → macro → micro might well be useful.
As previously argued, the “ ‘macro’ and ‘micro’ represent extreme limits of social
space (‘continuum’), which could be further subdivided into ‘macros’ or ‘micros’of various complexities” (Nekvapil 2006: 100). This study concurs with Nekvapil’s
assertion and argues that simple language management processes have to develop
a socio-​politically viable momentum and collective support at a meso level in order
to ultimately influence macro-​level organization and actual policy change.
Although the value of English as an academic lingua franca has been asserted
in Stellenbosch during the years 2015–​16, ELF discourse, whether in academia or
at grassroots levels, has not a ‘benign’ status in South Africa and further studies
are needed in order to closely examine diverse power hierarchies. There is no
doubt that many Afrikaans speakers feel strongly disillusioned about the eventsin Stellenbosch and the decreasing status of their language in the higher domains.
English, so much is evident, certainly does not represent a “neutral” medium tothem. More scholarship is required which examines the multiple power dynamics
that exist among the speakers of different Englishes in the institution.

Language politics at Stellenbosch University

117

Acknowledgments
This chapter emerged as part of a project funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) and my sincere thanks go to this institution. I am also grateful to the
Masters students Lorryn Williams and Reinette Meiring for research assistance.
Last, I also owe thanks to the members of the Sociolinguistic Seminar at Charles
University who commented on a presentation of this topic and, in particular,
Tamah Sherman for many stimulating and critical discussions about ELF.

References
Alexander, N. (2004) The politics of language planning in post-​apartheid in South
Africa. Language Problems and Language Planning 28 (2), 113–​130.
Alexander, N. (2013) Thoughts on the New South Africa. Auckland Park: Jacana.
Baker, W. (2015) Culture and Identity through English as a Lingua Franca: Rethinking
Concepts and Goals in Intercultural Communication. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Baker, W. (2018) English as a lingua franca and intercultural communication. In
J. Jenkins, W. Baker & M. Dewey (eds) The Routledge Handbook of English as a
Lingua Franca. London & New York: Routledge, 25–​36.
Balfour, R. (2002) Post-​colonial twilight: English as a failed lingua franca. The
English Academy Review 30 (1), 20–​32.
Bauman, R. & Briggs, C. L. (2003) Voices of Modernity: Language Ideologies and thePolitics of Inequality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beck, R. M. (2018) Language as apparatus: Entanglements of language, culture andterritory and the invention of nation and ethnicity. Postcolonial Studies 21 (2), 1–​
24.
Bhabha, H. K. (2004) The Location of Culture. Abingdon: Routledge.
Blaser, T. (2007) Afrikaner Identity after Nationalism: Young Afrikaners and the“new” South Africa. Unpublished Doctoral thesis. Submitted at University of the
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg.
Blommaert, J. & Rampton, B. (2011) Language and superdiversity. Diversities 13(2), 1–​21.
Bosch, B. (2000) Ethnicity markers in Afrikaans. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 144, 51–​68.
Brink, C. (2006) No Lesser Place: The Taaldebat at Stellenbosch. Cape Town: African
Sun Press.
Canagarajah, S. (2013) Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan Relations. Abingdon: Routledge.
Census (2011) Statistics South Africa. Available online: http://​www.stat​ssa.gov.za.

118

Stephanie Rudwick

De Klerk, V. & Gough, D. (2002) Black South African English. In R. Mesthrie (ed)Language in South Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 356–​380.
Du Plessis, T. (2003) Taalbeleid aan Universiteite in Suid-​Afrika [Language policy
at university website in South Africa]. Acta Academics Supplementum 2, 58–​82.
Du Plessis, T. (2006) From monolingual to bilingual higher education: The
repositioning of historically Afrikaans-​medium universities in South Africa.
Language Policy 5 (1), 87–​113.
Dube, B. (2017) Afrikaans must fall and English must rise: Ironies and contradictionsin protests by South African university students. Africa Insight 42 (2), 13–​27.
Engel, U. (1997) Ethnische Konflikte und politischer Neubeginn in Südafrika[Ethnic conflicts and political new beginnings in South Africa]. Afrika Spectrum
32 (1), 25–​47.
Errington, J. (2007) Linguistics in a Colonial World: A Story of Language, Meaning,and Power. Malden & Cambridge: Blackwell.
Fiedler, S. (2011) English as a lingua franca —​a native-​culture-​free code? Languageof communication vs. language of identification. Apples –​Journal of Applied
Language Studies 5 (3), 79–​97.
García, O. (2009) Bilingual Education in the 21st Century: A Global Perspective.
Malden & Oxford, UK: Wiley-​Blackwell.
Giliomee, H. (2001) Die Taal-​an Kulturele Uitdagigs van die Historiese Afrikaanse
Universiteite in Suid-​Afrika [The language and cultural challenges of the historical Afrikaans universities in South Africa]. DF Malherbe –​Gedenklesing 20.
Acta Varia 1, 1–​46.
Giliomee, H. (2003) The Rise and Possible Demise of Afrikaans as a Public Language.
Cape Town: PRAESA.
Giliomee, H. (2009) The deadly war of languages. Mail & Guardian. Online October
5. On WWW at https://​mg.co.za/​arti​cle/​2009-​10-​05-​a-​dea​dly-​war-​of-​langua​ges.
Accessed August 2, 2018.
Hartshorne, K. B. (1992) Crisis and Challenge: Black Education 1910–​1990. Cape
Town: Oxford University Press.
Hill, L. (2010) Language and status: On the limits of language planning. Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics 39, 41–​58.
Horáková, H. (2019) Challenges to political cosmopolitanism: The impact ofracialised discourses in post-​apartheid South Africa. Modern African, Politics,
History and Society 6 (2), 95–​118.
Hult, F. M. (2010) Analysis of language policy discourses across the scales of space
and time. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 202, 7–​24.
House, J. (2003) English as a lingua franca: A threat to multilingualism? Journal of
Sociolinguistics 7 (4), 556–​578.

Language politics at Stellenbosch University

119

House, J. (2014) English as a global lingua franca: A threat to multilingual communication and translation? Language Teaching 47 (3), 363–​376.
Hüllen, W. (1992) Identifikationssprache und Kommunikationssprache: ÜberProbleme der Mehrsprachlichkeit [Language of identification and communicationof language: About problems of multilingualism]. Zeitschrift für germanistische
Linguistik 20 (3), 298–​317.
Hynninen N. (2016) Language Regulation in English as a Lingua Franca.
Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Jenkins, J. (2018) Not English but English-​within-​multilingualism. In S. Coffee &U. Wingate (eds) New Directions for Research in Foreign Language Education.
London & New York: Routledge.
Jenks, C. (2013) Are you an ELF? The relevance of ELF as an equitable social category in online intercultural communication. Language and Intercultural Communication 13 (1), 95–​108.
Jernudd, B. & Neustupný, J. V. (1987) Language planning: For whom? In L. Laforge(ed) Actes du Colloque international sur l’aménagement linguistique /​Proceedingsof the International Colloquium on Language Planning. Québec: Les Presses del’Universite Laval, 69–​84.
Kamwangamalu, N. M. (2007) One language, multilayered identities: English in asociety in transition, South Africa. World Englishes 26 (3), 263–​275.
Kamwangamalu, N. M. (2019) English as a naturalized language. World Englishes.
doi: 10.1111/​weng.12395.
Kecskes, I. (2007) Formulaic language in English lingua franca. In I. Kecskes &L. Horn (eds) Explorations in Pragmatics: Linguistic, Cognitive and Intercultural
Aspects. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter, 191–​218.
Khokhlova, I. (2015) Lingua franca English of South Africa. Procedia: Social and
Behaviourial Sciences 214, 983–​991.
Kriel, M. (2003) Approaches to multilingualism in language planning and identity
politics: A critique. Society in Transition 34 (1), 159–​177.
Mabokela, R. O. (2001) Selective inclusion: Transformation and language policy at
the University of Stellenbosch. In R. O. Mabokela & K. L. King (eds) Apartheid
No More: Case Studies of Southern African Universities in the Process of Transformation. Westport: Bergin & Garvey, 59–​72.
Makalela, L. (2004) Making sense of BSAE for linguistic democracy in South Africa.
World Englishes 23 (3), 355–​366.
Makoni, S. (2003) From misinvention to disinvention of language: Multilingualism
and the South African constitution. In A. Ball, S. Makoni, G. Smitherman, A. K.
Spears (eds) Black Linguistics: Language, Society and Politics in Africa and theAmericas. London & New York: Routledge, 132–​151.

120

Stephanie Rudwick

Makoni, S. & Makoni, B. (2009) English and education in Anglophone Africa: Historical and current realities. In M. S. Wong & S. Canagarajah (eds) Christianand Critical English Language Educators in Dialogue: Pedagogical and EthicalDilemmas. New York & London: Routledge, 106–​119.
Manyike, T. V. & Lemmer, E. M. (2014) Research in language education in South
Africa: Problems & prospects. Mediterranean Journal of Social Science 5 (8), 251.
Mauranen, A. (2011) Exploring ELF in Academia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mauranen, A. (2012) Exploring ELF. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mauranen, A. (2014) Lingua franca discourse in academic contexts: Shaped bycomplexity. In J. Flowerdew (ed) Discourse in Context. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 225–​246.
Mauranen, A. (2017) Conceptualising ELF. In J. Jenkins, W. Baker & M. Dewey(eds) The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. London &New York: Routledge, 7–​24.
Mesthrie, R. (2006) Anti-​deletions in an L2 grammar: A study of Black South
African English mesolect. English World Wide 27 (2), 111–​145.
Mesthrie, R. & Bhatt, R. M. (2008) World Englishes. The Study of New Linguistic Varieties. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Modiano, M. (2004) Monoculturalization and language dissemination. Journal of
Language, Identity, and Education 3 (3), 215–​227.
Mwaniki, M. (2011) Language management in Africa: The dialectics of theory andpractice. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 29 (3), 243–​
257.
Nekvapil, J. (2006) From language planning to language management.
Sociolinguistica: International Yearbook of European Sociolinguistics 20, 92–​104.
Nekvapil, J. & Nekula, M. (2006) On language management in multinational companies in the Czech Republic. Current Issues in Language Planning 7, 307–​327.
Nekvapil, J. & Sherman, T. (2013) Language ideologies and linguistic practices: Thecase of multinational companies in Central Europe. In J. Nekvapil, T. Sherman& P. Kaderka (eds) Ideological Conceptualizations of Language: Discourses of Linguistic Diversity. Frankfurt on the Main: Peter Lang, 85–​118.
Nekvapil, J. & Sherman, T. (2015) An introduction: Language Management Theory
in Language Policy and Planning. International Journal of the Sociology ofLanguage 232, 1–​12.
Orman, J. (2008) Language Policy and Nation-​building in Post-​Apartheid South Africa. Dordrecht: Springer.
Pennycook, A. (2017) The Cultural Politics of English as an International Language.
London & New York: Routledge.

Language politics at Stellenbosch University

121

Posel, D. & Zeller, J. (2015) Language shift or increased bilingualism in South
Africa? Evidence from census data. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural
Development. doi: http://​dx.doi.org/​10.1080/​01434​632.2015.1072​206.
Rudwick, S. (2016) Afrikaans and institutional identity: A South African university
in the crossfire. In H. Horáková & K. Werkman (eds) Knowledge Production in
and on Africa. Berlin: LIT Verlag, 127–​150.
Rudwick, S. (2017) Compulsory African language learning at a South African tertiary institution. Language Problems and Language Planning 41 (2), 116–​137.
Rudwick, S. (2018) Language, Africanisation and identity politics in South African
tertiary education. Language, Identity and Education 17 (4), 255–​269. doi: https://​doi.org/​10.1080/​15348​458.2018.1460​207.
Rudwick, S. (2021) The Ambiguity of English as a Lingua Franca: Politics of Language
and Race in South Africa. London & New York: Routledge.
Seidlhofer, B. (2011) Understanding English as a Lingua Franca. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sherman, T. (2018) ELF and the EU /​wider Europe. In J. Jenkins, W. Baker &M. Dewey (eds) The Routledge Handbook of English as a Lingua Franca. London& New York: Routledge, 115–​125.
Singleton, D., Fishman, J. A., Aronin, L. & Ó Laoireal, M. (eds) (2013) Current Multilingualism: The New Linguistic Dispensation. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter
Mouton.
Smit, U. (1996) A New English for a New South Africa? Language Attitudes, Language
Planning and Education. Vienna: Braumüller.
Stellenbosch University (2014) Language Policy of the University of Stellenbosch,
LP –​SU. On WWW at https://​www.sun.ac.za/​engl​ish/​Docume​nts/​Langu​age/​
Langu​age%20Pol​icy%202​014%20Fi​nal%2012%20Dec%202​014.pdf. Accessed July20, 2018.
Stellenbosch University (2016) Language Policy of the University of Stellenbosch,
LP –​SU. On WWW at http://​www.sun.ac.za/​engl​ish/​Docume​nts/​Langu​age/​
Final%20L​angu​age%20Pol​icy%20J​une%202​016.pdf. Accessed July 20, 2018.
Stroud, C. (2015) Afterword: Turbulent deflections. In C. Stroud & M. Prinsloo (eds)
Language, Literacy and Diversity: Moving Words. New York: Routledge, 303–​316.
Turner, I. (2015) A matter of choice? The role of English and isiXhosa for university graduates in their early careers. Modern Africa, Politics, History and Society
3 (2), 43–​74.
Van der Waal, C. S. (2015) Languages of identification and languages of teachingat Stellenbosch University. Paper written for the panel discussion on Language
and Transformation at Stellenbosch University, June 4, 2015, University Museum.

122

Stephanie Rudwick

Van der Walt, C. & Evans, R. (2018) Is English the lingua franca of South Africa? In
J. Jenkins, W. Baker & M. Dewey (eds) The Routledge Handbook of English as a
Lingua Franca. London & New York: Routledge, 186–198.
Van Rooy, B. (2004) Black South African English: Phonology. In B. Kortmann & E. W.
Schneider (eds) A Handbook of Varieties of English 1: Phonology. Berlin: Mouton
de Gruyter, 943–​952.
Wade, R. (1996) An Investigation of the Putative Restandardisation of South African
English in the Direction of a ‘New’ English, Black South African English. Unpublished MA thesis submitted at the University of Natal, Durban.
Webb, V. (2002) Language in South Africa: The Role of Language in National Transformation, Reconstruction and Development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Webb, V. (2010) Afrikaans in higher education in S.A. Alternation 17 (1), 355–​381.
Webb, V. & Kriel, M. (2000) Afrikaans and Afrikaner nationalism. International
Journal of the Sociology of Language 144, 19–​50.

Part II
Minority languages and minoritizedlanguages

Roland Marti

Language management fromabove (and from below), from outside (andfrom inside): The case of Lower Sorbian
Abstract Lower Sorbian (LS) is a severely endangered minority language dominatedby German, but in the past also by the neighboring minority language Upper Sorbian(US). This complicates language management (LM), especially organized LM. Speakers
of LS (or of other minority languages) may choose a radical individual LM solution: theswitch to the majority language, particularly in cases when measures of organized LM
are not acceptable to them. Thus, in the post-​war period organized LM, imposed byrepresentatives of US, led to a large-​scale language shift from LS to German. In recent
years, organized LM has tried to correct ill-​conceived measures of the past through adifferent kind of LM that respects the language use of native speakers, rejecting the US
influence. It remains to be seen whether this new kind of organized LM, together withattempts at language revitalization through immersion programs, will be able to stopand reverse the language shift.
Keywords Lower Sorbian, minority languages, endangered languages, purism

1 I ntroduction
As far as I know, concepts of Language Management Theory (LMT) have not yet
been applied to Lower Sorbian (LS), the only partial exception being some remarks
by Nekvapil (2007) on the relationship between LS and US.1 The main problem ofusing LMT is the importance that it puts on deviations from the (or a) norm, given
the fact that the norms of LS are rather volatile, disputed in many respects andhardly ever applied correctly by anyone, as will be shown. On the other hand, LMT
may be very helpful in understanding the development of LS, if the establishingof norms and not deviations from them are at the center of attention. At the sametime it is also the macro-​level and organized language management (LM) thatare, albeit in a way that is quite different from other languages, important in theanalysis of the behavior of speakers of LS. The weakness of norms due to the insecurity of most speakers of LS (who are today, as a rule, non-​native speakers) makes
the micro-​level noting of deviations, their evaluation and the implementation of
1

There are two articles by Goro Kimura that deal with LMT as applied to Sorbian(Kimura 2014, 2015), but his object is US as it is used in the Catholic region, and thatis sociolinguistically rather different from LS.

126

Roland Marti

adjustments, as described in standard LMT (cf., e.g., Neustupný 2002; Nekvapil2012) rather exceptional. Organized LM in the case of LS, on the other hand, isquite often the result of the activity of individuals and small groups rather thanofficial bodies invested with power to impose norms. In the following, I will attempt to describe how LM worked and works in the case of LS in an historicalperspective with special emphasis on the recent past and the present.2

2 P rehistory of Sorbian in a Slavic-​German context
In the Central and Eastern part of Europe, two branches of Indo-​European wererivals ever since the earliest written testimonies comment on the language of thepeople living in these areas: Germanic and Slavic.3 The advancement of Slavic
towards the West is essentially a consequence of the westward movement ofGermanic speaking tribes on the continent during the Great Migration of Peoples: Slavic speaking tribes followed them a few centuries later and occupied thelargely vacant regions. By the 9th century the maximum westward extensionof Slavic was reached: Slavic speaking tribes settled as far west as the Elbe andeven beyond (the Polabians)4 and as far south as Franconia. From then on, thelinguistic border was slowly pushed back towards the east to the detriment of
Slavic until the early 20th century when the expansion was halted and eventually reversed as a result of World War I and II (in the latter case by a policy that isbest described as ‘linguistic cleansing’) so that today the linguistic border between
West Slavic and Germanic coincides with the political borders of Germany andAustria with their Slavic neighbors Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia. The
eastward movement of the linguistic frontier in the High and Late Middle Ages2
3

4

For the present article, Nekvapil (2009) was most useful, since it deals particularly
with contact situations and the interplay of micro-​and macro-​level as well as ofsimple and organized LM.
In the earlier period of their contacts, the Germans did not differentiate between
the speakers of Slavic: they were generally referred to as Wenden [Wends] and theirlanguage as Wendisch [Wendish]. Later on, this general term would be specified andused for Sorbs and Sorbian. A variant, viz. Windisch, was used to designate Slovenianin Austria. In both cases, the use of these terms is resented by a part of the Sorbian-​and Slovenian-​speaking population today since they are considered pejorative (forSorbian cf. Section 6 below).
In the region to the south of Hannover that is called Wendland to this day, Polabian
was spoken as late as the 18th century. Cf. on Polabian Olesch (1983–​87) and (1989).
It is perhaps worth mentioning that Polabian is, to my knowledge, the only extinct
Slavic language that has been revived, first in a keynote lecture at the VIIth International Congress of Slavists in Warsaw 1973 delivered entirely in Polabian (Olesch1998), and recently for touristic purposes. It is doubtful, however, that a full revivalwith “secondary native speakers” (as, e.g., in the case of Cornish) will be attempted.

Language management from above, from outside127

was largely the result of colonization and assimilation and was not often reflected
upon in written sources,5 exceptions being legal provisions regarding the use of
Slavic in court and restrictions on membership in the regulations of guilds (the so-​called Wendenparagraphen [Wendish paragraphs]).6 This negligence of linguistic
matters is not surprising since the language of the people did not really matter: theadministration used Latin or (increasingly) German, the church exclusively Latinin writing: when addressing Slavic speaking subjects the representatives of stateand church were expected to know and to be able to use Slavic or else they had
recourse to interpreters. As far as the Slavic speaking population was concerned,
they were “speechless” in a most literal sense since there are no sources expressing
their point of view regarding the process of linguistic assimilation.
This situation changed profoundly with the Reformation. The Lutheran Reformation and the Reformed churches in general stressed the use of the language ofthe people, and this not only in speaking, but also and above all in writing. The
basic texts, i.e., the Bible (at least a lectionary, if possible the New Testament withpsalms, ideally the complete Bible), the liturgy, the catechism(s) and hymns had to
be translated and the translations were, as a rule, eventually published.7 Because ofthis, many ‘smaller’ languages developed a written tradition for the first time.8 In
linguistically mixed regions, it had to be decided whether all the languages should
be considered or whether one should be given preference to the detriment of theother(s).
In the area east of the Elbe that was in a state of transition from Slavic to
German, one group of Slavs was particularly affected by this change: the Sorbs
living in Lusatia. Moreover, it is here that the history of LM can be studied from thetime of the Reformation. The case of Sorbian is particularly illuminating because
the area where Sorbian was spoken would soon become a linguistic island (andlater an archipelago) in German-​speaking surroundings, because German was thelanguage of power, because Lusatia was politically very heterogeneous, lacking
centralized power, and because a part of the Sorbian-​speaking area remained Catholic. As a result, there were many different factors and many different actors interested in and influencing LM.

5
6
7
8

The best recent description of this process of linguistic assimilation is given by Stone(2016); cf. also Herrmann (1985) for the earlier period.
It should be borne in mind, however, that the Wendenparagraphen were based on ethnicity, not on language: those interested in becoming members of a guild of necessity
had to master German since Slavic would not have been used in guild meetings.
Incidentally this also affected areas that did not accept the new faith (or reverted
to Catholicism again) since the Counter-​Reformation stressed the use of vernacularlanguages in writing, too, but mainly for proselytizing and not in the liturgy.
This did not necessarily save them from extinction, a case in point being the Baltic
language (Old) Prussian with a short written tradition and its final extinction at the
beginning of the 18th century (cf. Rinkevičius 2017).

128

Roland Marti

The Sorbian case is particularly interesting, because it is not only the relationship between German and Sorbian that influences LM, but also an internal dualism,viz. that between US and LS. In addition, in this latter dualism there is a changeof roles, since LS was originally the leader, but it was soon outperformed by US.

3 H
 istory of language management for Lower Sorbian
from the reformation to World War II
The Reformation reached Lusatia rather early since its first stronghold, Wittenberg, was actually on the western fringe of the Sorbian language area.9 As usual,the urban population was affected first, but they were mainly German speaking
and the Sorbs living there were mostly bilingual. In the rural areas, where a monolingual Sorbian population has to be assumed, the Reformation spread somewhat
later.10
It is impossible to reconstruct the spoken Sorbian of those days since we only
have written sources and most of them are translations from German (or, to alesser degree, Latin). Native speakers of German translated many of the texts andin any case, they betray a strong German influence. Therefore, it is safe to assume
a certain, maybe even a considerable distance between the language of those texts
and the real spoken Sorbian of the villagers.
The earliest longer Sorbian text conserved in written form is the translationof the New Testament by Mikławš Jakubica († ca. 1563) of 1548. In the colophon,Jakubica refers to the language simply as Serpſky [Sorbian].11 The translator’s
linguistic basis was a now extinct dialect from the Eastern periphery usuallydescribed as being transitional from LS to Polish (cf. Schuster-​Šewc 1967: XXXIII–​XLIII). The choice was obviously dictated by the necessity to be understood by
the parishioners. Since the translation remained in manuscript form and seems tohave been forgotten until its rediscovery in the 19th century, it did not influence
the further development of written Sorbian. It was different in the case of printed
books, however, and this is already evident from the first two books printed in Sorbian, viz. Albin Moller’s (1541–​1618) calendar cum hymnal and catechism of 1574
and Wenceslaus Warichius’s (1564–​1618) catechism of 1595. They actually laid thebasis for the division of Sorbian into LS and US as two distinct Sorbian written
languages that all later translators, authors and printers adhered to and that would

9

Luther, it must be said, was not particularly inclined towards the Sorbs (or the Wends,
as he called them), and his remarks referring to them in his table talks were neither
flattering nor politically correct. Cf. on this Malink (1983), a slightly apologetic
Malink (2017b), Stone (2016: 90–​91).
10 Cf. for the beginnings Stone (2016: 70–​93), Malink (2017b) and especially Buliš (2017),
for later periods the respective articles in the collection published on the quincentenary of the Reformation (Malink 2017a).
11 Schuster-​Šewc (1967: 415). All translations, unless noted otherwise, are mine.

Language management from above, from outside

129

eventually lead to the codification of two separate standard languages.12 This division, dictated by practical considerations (viz. to use the variety of Sorbian best
understood by the parishioners), was tacitly accepted and not called into question
until the 19th century.13
The LS written language, then, reflected in some ways the spoken language, but inorder to be used in a religious context and later on in literature this spoken language
had to be adapted. The main source for this adaptation was, of course, German. Since,
however, we only have the written texts it is difficult to determine the exact extent
of German interference. As the population in the villages was largely monolingual,it may be assumed that the authors or translators introduced those linguistic aspectsof Sorbian that have no parallel in other Slavic languages (or only in those that were
under equally strong German influence, such as Slovene). The first translators, being
faced with the enormous task of rendering highly complex texts in a heretofore
unwritten language, probably did not worry too much about linguistic ‘purity,’ sothere probably was not much conscious LM regarding the purity of the language
they used, or stayed on the level of noticing. ‘Purity’ became an issue for later generations, and they tried to meet the theological demands regarding the correctness of
their translations and the linguistic demands for correct and adequate LS.
The best example for these problems in the case of LS is the translation of the
New Testament by Gottlieb Fabricius (1681–​1741), first published in 1709. In theunpaginated German foreword Dem Chriſ﻿tlichen Leſer [To the Christian reader], hereflects on the problems of translation but also on linguistic matters:
In der Sprache ſelbſ﻿t, die wegen Mangel der Schrifften ziemlich armſcheinet [sic!] an
Wörter, hat man dahin geſehen, wie die Reinigkeit derſelben möge wieder hergeſ﻿tellet
werden, und die eingeſchlichenen deutſchen Wörter, ſo viel, als ſ﻿ich hat wollen thunlaſſen, vermieden, und bißweilen andere, die eben noch nicht allenthalben ſehr bekant,aber doch […] ihre Richtigkeit in dem Grunde haben, und leicht zu verſ﻿tehen seyn,
eingeführet […]. (Fabricius 1759)[As for the language itself that seems to be rather poor in its vocabulary due to the lackof written texts, we tried to re-​establish its purity and to avoid as much as possible the

12 Moller, being the first to publish in Sorbian, referred to the language only as
Wendiſch: ein Wendiſches Gesangbuch […] in Lateiniſcher und Wendiſcher Sprache[…] Auch der Kleine Catechiſmus […] Wendiſch vertiret [a Wendish hymnal […] in the
Latin and Wendish language […] And also the Small Catechism […] translated into
Wendish] (Moller 1959: 3). In the introduction to his catechism Warichius refers toMoller’s publication as ein geſangbuch ſo Magiſ﻿ter Albinus Mollerus in Niderlauſitzer
ſprache Vertiret vnd in druck vorfertiget [a hymnal that Master Albinus Mollerus
translated into the Lower Lusatian language and published in print] (Schuster-​Šewc
2001: 29). Warichius’s own language is called die Oberlauſentſche wendische Sprache[the Upper Lusatian Wendish language] (Schuster-​Šewc 2001: 31).
13 On the non-​linguistic background for this development cf. for US Fasske (1985) andfor LS Stone (1985).

130

Roland Marti

German words that had entered it and to introduce sometimes others that, although
not very well known yet […], are basically correct and easy to understand […].]

This is, as far as I know, the first expression of linguistic purism in LS, and Fabricius obviously tried to achieve his goal of ‘pure’ LS largely unaffected by German
by presenting a model in the form of the New Testament.14 In spite of this purism,
German still heavily influenced the language of the New Testament, as a short random
excerpt will show:
WOno pak ße ſ﻿tanu
wó tich ßamich dńach,ES
begab sich aber in jenen
Tagen,
ažpſchikaſn wot togo Keyžora Auguſ﻿tußa wón hujžo,daß ein GebothvomKayser Augusto
ausgieng,
abü ſchyken ßwět ſapißani hordowal.
daß alle
Welt geschätzet würde. (Lk 2, 1; Fabricius 1759: 221)15[And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Cæsar Augustus,that all the world should be taxed.]16

German influence is most noticeable in the choice of script (both the German andthe LS texts were printed in black letter/​Gothic script) and orthography (<ß> for[s]‌, <ſ> for [z], <ſch> for [ſ] etc.), but also in the use of the (definite) article (wottogo =​vom [von dem]), of the detachable verbal prefix (wón hujžo =​ausgieng), in
the passive voice formed with the auxiliary hordowaś (morphologically adaptedfrom werden, the auxiliary used for passive voice in German), a German loanword(ſapißani hordowal =​geschätzet würde), and in word order (final position of thefinite verb in subordinate clauses).17
14 In the text Fabricius refers to a previous (hand)written translation that, however,
was apparently faulty in many (unspecified) ways. Therefore, the language of histranslation was obviously the result of a full LM cycle of noting deviations andimplementing adjustments, even inviting the evaluation and a new LM cycle byfuture editors.
15 The New Testament of Fabricius was a bilingual (German and LS) publication so thatsuperiors could easily compare original and translation as to the orthodoxy of thetranslation. This also facilitated the task of the pastor since he often had to preach
twice on Sunday, once in German and once in LS. It could also be interpreted as asign of gratitude towards German-​speaking authorities or nobility sponsoring the
publication, and it might finally be seen as an attempt to familiarize the Sorbs with
the German language (which would be a matter of interest for LM).
16 The English translation is that of the King James Bible.
17 It is interesting to compare the text to Jakubica’s translation of 1548: Stalo ſe pak
ie w tich dnåch, aſch wyſſchla ie yedna prczykaſn wot tego Keyſchora Auguſ﻿ta, aby /​zaly Swett byl wopiſſany. Jakubica’s orthography is clearly inferior since it uses ſ forboth the voiced and the voiceless consonant (the same is true for ſch), but it is more
Slavonic in using y instead of Fabricius’s ü or i. Jakubica also uses the indefinite
article yedna under German influence. On the other hand, Jakubica does not use aLanguage management from above, from outside

131

However, he ‘managed’ the language in other aspects as well since he also
reflects on the dialectal basis of his language:
Sonſ﻿t hat man ſ﻿ich bey denen in der Wendiſchen Sprache ſehr häufigen und
unterſchiedlichen Dialectis nach demjenigen gerichtet, der um Cotbus herum
gebräuchlich iſ﻿t, und vor den zierlichſ﻿ten und accurateſ﻿ten gehalten wird […].
[Otherwise and in view of the very numerous and diverse dialects of the Wendish
language we adhered to the one that is in use around Chóśebuz/​Cottbus and that is
considered the most delicate and accurate one […].]

It is, of course, not surprising that the dialect chosen was that of the politicaland economic center of the region and that it is considered the most beautiful
and the best. This is typical of many other languages (French with Paris, English
with London, and Russian with St. Petersburg/​Moscow etc.).18 Although this was
an individual choice, the passage quoted above indicates that Fabricius reached
his decision based on the general opinion in the speech community. The fact that
almost all of his successors in printing LS texts followed his example corroborates
this assumption.
However, it is remarkable that for Fabricius this applies only to the written
language. He states specifically that the pronunciation is not predetermined by his
codification of the written language:
Doch […] kan ſchon ein jeder […] es alſo leſen, wie es ſeines Ortes Gelegenheit mitſ﻿ich bringet […].
[However […] everyone may […] read it as it is customary in his village […].]

Therefore, Fabricius only proposed a written norm. The spoken realization could
be adjusted to the regional pronunciation. The spoken norm, then, was a matterof individual or even simple LM, as it were. This ‘liberalism’ as far as spoken LS isconcerned comes as a surprise and it was not followed by his successors. Thus, theChóśebuz/​Cottbus pronunciation was later considered standard, at least for the use
in church, even though it might be noted as a deviation (from the dialect norm)
outside of the Chóśebuz/​Cottbus dialect region.
Around this time, the first proposal to introduce one single written language forall the Sorbs was made. It emanated from the US area and, not surprisingly, advocated the exclusive use of written US to serve all the Sorbs:

detachable verbal prefix (wyſſchla) and has the Slavonic construction to be +​past
passive participle (byl wopiſſany) instead of the hordowaś construction to form thepassive voice, typically Slavic features. In both cases, then, Fabricius’s LS is more
German.
18 Cf. on this Stone (1985: 100–​101) who considers the choice of the Chóśebuz/​Cottbus
dialect to have been a deliberate choice by Fabricius to make the language as different
from US as possible.

132

Roland Marti

Derowegen stünde wohl zu hoffen, wenn in der Niederlausiz sich die Herren Pastoresdes Oberlausizschen reinen Haupt=​dialecti auf der Cantzel nur bedienen wollten,
daß leichtlich dahin gebracht werden könnte, daß der gemeine Mann die hier oben
ausgegangenen Kirchenbücher verstehen und zugleich nutzen würden […]. (Muka
1881: 74)19[Thus, one might hope that if the ministers in Lower Lusatia were to use the Upper
Lusatian pure main dialect from the pulpit, then this could easily result in the simple
man understanding and at the same time using the church books published here [i.e.,in Upper Lusatia, RWM].]

This proposal was a clear attempt to influence the LM of LS from the outside inorder to establish one norm for the Sorbian language used in church. This idea,
however, did not gain ground in Lower Lusatia. LS slowly developed further along
the lines established by Fabricius, the German influence becoming stronger, especially in the 19th and 20th centuries, due to the increase of bilingualism among
the Sorbs and because of economic and political development of the region (industrialization, increased mobility, centralization, and a more systematic policy ofGermanization). It must be said, though, that there could have been much moreborrowing than actually occurred. However, much of it was not needed because
LS was essentially restricted to a few domains and for them the indigenous vocabulary sufficed.20
In the first half of the 19th century, the Slavic renascence movement reached the
Sorbs from Bohemia. Its representatives elaborated the theory of Slavic reciprocity(cf. Kollár 1929), which led to important linguistic changes in Slavic standard
languages. In the case of Czech, it resulted in a switch from black letter/​Gothic
script (considered German) to Roman, changes in the orthography (‘German’ w andau being replaced by more ‘Slavic’ v and ou) and a strong ‘xenophobic’ purism.21
The ideas of the movement were taken up in Lusatia and led to the Sorbian renascence, advanced mainly by representatives of US cultural life. As a result several
far-​reaching changes in the codification were proposed: the introduction of Roman
script and a diacritic and slightly historical orthography (known as analogiski
prawopis [analogous orthography]), puristic changes in the vocabulary (replacement of German loanwords by older native words, Czech loans or calques) andin grammar (ostracizing the use of the article(s) and of the passive forms modeled
19 The Lutheran minister and polymath Abraham Frencel (1656–​1740) made the proposal, but it was not published in his lifetime and thus did not exert any influenceon the further development of the written tradition.
20 Of the possible domains listed in Spolsky (2009) LS was essentially restricted tofamily, religion, the workplace of preindustrial times (agriculture and the crafts
linked to life in rural areas), and local government. All other areas already required
knowledge or even the exclusive use of German.
21 On the various forms of purism, cf. Thomas (1991), on purism as a form of LM cf.
Neustupný (1989).

Language management from above, from outside133

on the German werden passive etc.). At the same time, the movement advocatedthe unification of the Protestant and Catholic US written languages. In terms of
LMT, it was not a deviation from the actual norm that was noted, evaluated andcorrected, but with respect to an ideal norm, the actual norm itself was considered
deviant, and important parts of it had to be replaced in favor of the ideal norm.22
The proposals were successfully implemented only partially, because those advocating the changes did not have the power or authority necessary to impose the
new norm. As a result, US was written in three different variants until World War
II (Protestant, Catholic, analogous). Thus, the idea to strengthen the position of
US through unification as proposed by the intellectual elite resulted in the opposite, viz. a further split within US between adherents of the traditional written
languages and the Slavicizing unificators.
The Sorbian renascence movement also addressed the problem of the division
between US and LS. In this case, however, it was not unification any more that was
advocated,23 but rather convergence.24 Again, the main propagators were Upper
Sorbs and essentially their efforts failed again. Still a LS variant of the analogous
orthography was elaborated and finally codified in 1903, but it was used even lessthan the corresponding US codification. So until 1936, when the last LS publication appeared before the war, the written (and thus standard) language was split,
too: there was a traditional variant using black letter/​Gothic script and German
orthography with strong German influence in vocabulary and grammar, and a

22 Adherents of the new norm practiced quite a rigid form of LM. Their publications
were most carefully checked for deviations, and rumor has it that in their meetings
people accidentally violating the new norm in conversation, e.g., by using an article,
had to pay a fine.
23 In a footnote to the quote from Abraham Frencel above (cf. n. 19) the editor of thejournal, Michał Hórnik (1833–​1894), an important figure in Sorbian cultural life
and an advocate of Sorbian renascence, explained why this was not possible any
more: “To budźeše móžne było, hdy by so před 300 lětami tak zawjedło, hdy budźechu
duchowni narodnje zmysleni byli a hdy budźechu šule w Hornjej a Delnjej Łužicy
derje serbske bywałe. Ale Serbja su sebi wot Němcow powjedać dali a skónčnje samiwěrili, zo horni Serb delnjemu njerozymi a tak staj so wobě podrěči bóle dźěliłoj dyžli
zjednoćałej.” [This might have been possible if it had been introduced 300 years ago,
if the ministers had had a [Sorbian, RWM] ethnic conscience and if the schools inUpper and Lower Lusatia had been thoroughly Sorbian. However, the Sorbs let theGermans tell them that an Upper Sorb does not understand a Lower Sorb and they
finally believed it themselves. Thus, it came about that the two dialects divergedrather than converged.] (Muka 1881: 74) This is contradicted by the fact that the Sorbs
themselves differentiated US and LS as early as the 16th century (cf. n. 12 above).
24 Nevertheless, even this convergence was lopsided since it usually meant bringing
LS closer to US. Thus Hórnik (1880), even though claiming a mutual convergence intheory, actually proposed more changes reflecting an US bias than vice versa.

134

Roland Marti

puristic variant written in Roman script and analogous orthography and only marginal German influence.25
Looking back at the period from the perspective of LM, one may say that the
emergence and the development of written and later standard LS were largely the
result of individual efforts of actors with interest and partially also with expertise,
but with limited power.26 The majority of speakers of LS did not hold the language
in high esteem, an attitude that was strengthened by the Germanizing activitiesof the state (LS was officially not to be used in school except for the purpose ofteaching the children German) and partly the church, and thus did not develop aparticular interest in questions regarding standard LS. If the ‘ordinary’ speakers of
LS practiced LM at all, then it occurred on the level of language choice, i.e., it was
the decision to use either German or LS, and in most official contexts (with thepartial exception of the church), it was to the detriment of LS. In the other sense,
the few people that really practiced LM within LS, mostly preachers or teachers,
therefore had a considerable influence on LS, and their individual decisions could
actually alter the norm. According to their power given by authority based on
expertise, their LM, although it was individual LM, could have the same influence as organized LM in other languages. Nevertheless, as in US, the lack of state
or institutional power to impose norms seriously hampered these attempts of
LM in LS.

25 In both cases (US and LS) the idea that Slavic languages should also have a ‘Slavic’
script and orthography misfired, whereas in the Czech lands it was successful, cf.
Galmiche (2001). Obviously, it was unwise to replace a script and an orthographythat was familiar to the Sorbs from German (the language used and taught in schooland partly in church) by an innovation, whose only asset was the easier accessibilityof other Slavonic languages. The closeness to their ‘Slavic brethren,’ however, wasapparently something that most Sorbs, and Lower Sorbs in particular, were not very
interested in.
26 A good example of this is the (only) LS weekly newspaper. A quantitative analysisof the language in the first fifty years of its existence shows that the frequency of
passive constructions with the auxiliary hordowaś (from German werden), one ofthe primary targets of Sorbian purism (cf. above), increased with each change of theeditor to drop slowly but continuously during the term of editorship. Obviously, each
new editor started out with the intention to use a more popular and less puristic
language and developed into a moderate purist as time wore on. It is interesting
to note that in spite of these temporary upsurges of hordowaś constructions theoverall development reduced the use of the construction drastically (cf. Bartels 2006).
A similar analysis targeting US loanwords shows that the influence of the editor(s)was very strong in this area, too. Thus, the number of US loanwords increased significantly during the editorship of Bogumił Šwjela (1873–​1948, editor 1916–​1922)
and Mina Witkojc (1893–​1975, editor 1923–​1931), both trying to reduce the highnumber of Germanisms (cf. Pohontsch 2002: 317–​321, 339). To typology of actors,
cf. Fenton-​Smith & Gurney (2016).

Language management from above, from outside

135

In the first half of the 20th century, LM was less of an intra-​Sorbian issue. It
centered on the use of Sorbian (both US and LS) in the face of increasing Germanization. LM was essentially reduced to using Sorbian tout court, and encouraging
others to do so, too. In the Third Reich, after an initial period of tolerance, Sorbian
was practically ousted from public life, and Sorbian publishing activities were forbidden. Under these conditions, the organized LM within the Sorbian community
with respect to standardization or convergence simply ceased to exist.

4 S orbian revival after 1945
After having been virtually non-​existent in the public sphere for about ten years,
the re-​establishment of Sorbian started almost immediately after the unconditionalsurrender of the Third Reich.27 The Domowina, the national organization of the
Sorbs, resumed its activities on May 10, 1945 in Upper Lusatia (i.e., in the Free
State of Saxony), but only in 1949 in Lower Lusatia (Brandenburg), where LS was
spoken. At first, there were plans by some representatives of the Sorbs to secedefrom Germany or to obtain some kind of political autonomy, but this was given
up in favor of a promise of state support for Sorbian culture and a certain degreeof cultural autonomy. This led to the promulgation of the Sorbian law in the Free
State of Saxony (i.e., for Upper Lusatia) in 1948 and an Ordinance extending theprovisions of this law to the State of Brandenburg in 1950. In exchange for the
support of the politics of the Socialist party, the Domowina was given a quasi-​official status as a so-​called mass organization and had access to considerable financial means. In 1955 a member of the Politburo officially proclaimed the sloganŁužica budźe dwurěčna [US] –​Łužyca buźo dwojorěcna [LS] –​Die Lausitz wird
zweisprachig [Lusatia will become bilingual].28 At the end of the decade, however,the slogan was changed to Łužica budźe socialistiska –​Łužyca buźo socialistiska –​Die Lausitz wird sozialistisch [Lusatia will become socialist] (Elle 1995: 148).
Some of the earliest decisions taken by the Sorbian representatives that were
now in a position of power concerned linguistic matters. Most urgent were
decisions regarding script and orthography since Sorbian printing should beresumed as soon as possible. It was clear from the offset that only Roman script
and analogous orthography would be permitted since those now in a position of
power were adherents of those changes. The changes in orthography were minor
for US.29 LS, however, was an altogether different matter.

27 On the linguistic side of this revival, see Faska (1998).
28 Elle (1995: 43). Actually, this was not quite correct: the slogan should have been
“Lusatia will become trilingual” since US and LS are considered two distinct
languages.
29 The orthography was essentially changed in one respect: initial kh-​was replaced bych-​, but it was still to be pronounced as [kh].

136

Roland Marti

The situation for LS was particularly difficult. There were few linguisticallyinformed and active representatives of the language, there was even less “language
pride” than in US, and thus the danger of a language shift to German was quite real.
Furthermore, the Sorbs and thus also LS were given official protection later in Brandenburg, if compared to US in Saxony (see above), and the Domowina was essentiallyan US organization with headquarters in Budyšin/​Bautzen, i.e., in US territory. Moreover, US printers often printed LS publications in Upper Lusatia.
The first LS publications, especially the revived weekly newspaper, used Roman
script and a slightly modified analogous orthography based on US. The changes
pointed towards US and this was openly admitted:
Teke smy dolnoserbski pšawopis tšochu pśeměnili, aby jen zbližyli pšawopisoju
gornoserbskeje rěcy, ale ńejo to ẃelike pśeměneńe. (Nowy Casnik 1949 no. 1, quoted in
Pohončowa 2000: 9)[We also changed the LS orthography a little bit in order to bring it closer to the orthography of US, but this is not a great change.]30

These were ad hoc LM measures to get LS publishing started. Then a linguistic tugof war started regarding LS orthography. Several commissions discussed the issue
in 1951 and 1952.31 In the first commission there were originally only US members,
so two Lower Sorbs had to be invited later to have at least a minimal representationof those directly concerned. There seems to have been quite a lot of wrangling andpolitical pressure exerted upon the LS members.32 The main goal was always to bring
US and LS closer together. The discussions also spilled over into the newspapers. It
was even questioned whether LS should be considered as a separate language at all.
Consequently, there were outside proposals to abandon LS altogether in favor of US.
In the end LS was recognized as a language in its own right, but the following changes
were introduced in its orthography:
1.	
i → ě in a few words (nimski [German], źiśi [children] → němski, źěśi, US němski, dźěći)2.	
h-​→ w-​before o and u (hokno [window], humožnik [savior] → wokno, wumožnik,US wokno, wumóžnik)3.	
ó → o (pód [under], Chóśebuz [Cottbus] → pod, Chośebuz)
4.	
ĆV/​CjV → CjV (smužkowańe/​jotowanje → jotowanje, US jotowanje)33

30 The “we” in this case refers to the US editor-​in-​chief so it was clearly a decision fromthe outside and from above, since the LS speech community had not been consulted
beforehand.
31 The history of this process is described in detail in Pohončowa (2000), essentiallybased on the minutes of the commissions and of articles published in this context.
32 The minutes of one meeting were signed and thus approved by a LS participant aus
taktischen Gründen [for tactical reasons], and in another case the signatures of theLS participants are illegible, probably on purpose.
33 This refers to the rendering of palatalized consonants in writing when a vowel
follows. LS in both traditional and analogous orthography had a mixed system ofLanguage management from above, from outside

137

Of these changes 1, 2, and 4 actually brought LS closer to US whereas 3 was neutral in this respect.34 The discussions and the subsequent changes in orthography
did not really concern the average speaker of LS at first since most of them had
little contact with written LS, and the older generation that had learnt to read LS inreligious instruction had difficulties with the new script and the new orthography.
Moreover, the texts they used, i.e., mainly the Bible and the hymnal, were still
accessible in the traditional script and orthography.
However, the whole discussion is instructive from the point of view of LM, atleast as far as LS was concerned. First, there was a considerable amount of outside (mainly US) influence and even pressure. Secondly, the original changes were
proposed not by representatives of LS, but by speakers of US; only at a later stage
were the former invited but, as it seems, more for cosmetic reasons. Finally, themain changes (introduction of Roman script and analogous orthography) had been
decided upon before and could not be discussed, even though they were symbolically very important, especially for the average speaker of LS.35 Therefore, briefly,
one may say that these decisions are examples of organized LM and of LM that
did not come from the LS speech community itself, but from above and from theoutside. It is also obvious that those changes could only be imposed because theiradvocates were now in a position of power.

5 L ower Sorbian after the reforms
In view of the late official support for LS (see above), one may say that the language
did not really rebound until the early 1950s. This relaunch was heavily supported
from the US side. Thus, the only LS newspaper first re-​appeared as a supplement to
the US Nowa doba [New Era], after a few irregular publications on a monthly basis,
as of 1950 as Nowy Casnik [New Journal]. It was edited and published in Budyšin/​Bautzen, i.e., in US territory. Only in 1955 did it become independent of Nowa doba,
when finally the editorial office, publisher and printing were moved to Chóśebuz/​
Cottbus and it became a weekly paper. LS as a subject (not as the language of
instruction) was officially introduced in the schools as of 1952 (at the same time
the first LS high school was established in Chóśebuz/​Cottbus). Later on, regularbroadcasts in LS were introduced. In all these instances, the ‘new’ LS was used.

using the acute, i.e., smužkowańe (thus ńasł [carried]) or j, i.e., jotowanje (thus wjas
[village]) that reflected the actual pronunciation quite closely. There had also been
proposals advocating smužkowańe throughout.
34 US had ó as well but it was pronounced differently and the positions in which itappeared were different.
35 This aspect applies to US as well. It seems, however, that there the changes introduced (especially the change of script and orthography) were not felt to be too
aggravating, since there was practically no public discussion.

138

Roland Marti

These changes in favor of LS faced many problems. First, there was a lack ofqualified LS personnel. In order to overcome this, speakers of US were recruited,
but it seems that they were not always properly prepared, so in many cases their
US linguistic background influenced their performance in LS. This was, of course,
particularly problematic in the case of the teaching profession, and it led to thewidespread impression that the language of the LS high school was US (see thequote below).
Another problem was the official language policy that was highly puristic forboth US and LS. The elite had always been puristic, but in the past, they had torestrict purism to their own linguistic activity, so it was more or less simple LM.
Now, however, they were in a position of power and could impose purism on others(organized LM). Furthermore speakers of US (whether on purpose or inadvertently is not relevant in this context) introduced numerous US loans in the lexicon,
partly to fill lexical gaps but sometimes also to replace widely accepted German
loanwords or even LS words.36 The fact that in the German Democratic Republic(GDR) all publications had to undergo preliminary censure made it even easierto enforce linguistic uniformity.37 Unfortunately, this attitude was coupled with asystematic denigration of dialectal varieties of Sorbian, so that the native speakers
were made to feel ashamed for their language. In addition to this, school and mass
media promoted a kind of spelling pronunciation so that the orthographic reform
also had orthoepic consequences. This alienated even those speakers of LS that
did not read their language but only spoke it. Finally, yet importantly, there wasa problem of content: the official media and the school propagated socialism andatheism and this in a region that was (and still is) rather conservative and very religious. In sum, organized LM, coming (at least partially) from the outside and fromabove, artificially separated standard LS from its dialect basis.
Overtly there was little if any reaction to this type of LM. The ‘new’ LS reignedin the mass media, in school and on formal public occasions. Unofficially, thespeech community reacted to this new situation in different ways. Most of thenative speakers continued using their local dialect among themselves, but limited
36 An analysis of the lexicon of the LS weekly shows a peak in the use of US loans to bein the middle of the 1950s (i.e., at about the time the newspaper moved to Chóśebuz/​
Cottbus) and then a slow drop to a very low number in the mid-​1970s (Pohontsch
2002: 298). It has to be borne in mind, however, that this records only the first useof the respective words: once introduced, the loans were likely to stay. Therefore,
the drop in the mid-​1970s perhaps indicates not so much a conscious decision not
to introduce any more US loanwords but rather a saturation point.
37 In addition to the normal censor, whose task it was to ensure political and ideologicalcorrectness, the Sorbian publishing house that was state-​owned (officially volkseigen[owned by the people]) also had a special proofreader to ensure linguistic correctness. His main task was to enforce purism. To my knowledge, this post still exists
in the case of the US daily newspaper Nowa doba (after reunification reverting to its
old name Serbske nowiny).

Language management from above, from outside139

their participation in official contexts where LS was used since the ‘new’ LS was
expected. More serious, however, was the decision of many speakers of LS not totransmit their language to their children.38 This interrupted the intergenerationaltransmission of LS almost completely so that by the end of the 1980s there werepractically no LS native speakers of childbearing age any more. This, of course, isan extreme consequence of organized LM from above on the level of family LM
that might be dubbed linguosuicide.
The institutions that decided on organized LM never recognized this fact andso the policy was not changed to accommodate the native speakers who had theimpression that the ‘new’ LS language was not their language any more:39
Nejmarkantnjej jawi se to [mócny wliw górnoserbšćiny, RWM] we wucbnicach awuwucowańskej rěcy na dolnoserbskem gymnaziumje w 50tych a 60tych lětach.
Rěc w dolnoserbskich wusćełanjach a w Nowem Casniku njejo se w tej rigoroznej
reformowanosći pokazała. Weto jo se wot cytarjow a słucharjow cesto posuźowała
ako “njenaša rěc”, a rěc na gymnaziumje ako gornoserbska. (Jenč & Starosta 1998: 249)
[Most noticeable is this [the strong influence of US, RWM] in the textbooks and in
the language of instruction used in the LS high school in the 1950s and 1960s. The
language of the LS broadcasts and of the Nowy casnik [the LS weekly, RWM] was
not so rigorously reformed. Still readers and listeners often considered it as “not ourlanguage,” and the language of the high school as US.]The partisans of the official position (officials, journalists, broadcasters, teachers,
representatives of Sorbian cultural organizations), on the other hand, who were

38 This is a particular form of family LM typical for minority languages: if speakers disagree with changes introduced (often it is purism) they can always decide to switch
to the majority language. Another example of this kind of reaction (albeit on quite
a different scale) among the Slavonic languages is Belarusian in relation to Russian,cf. Zaprudski (2007) and Sloboda (2009), the main difference being that in this casethere is a middle way, i.e., a mixed language generally referred to as trasjanka (onthe latter and its Russian-​Ukrainian counterpart, suržyk, cf. Hentschel, Taranenko& Zaprudski 2014).
39 It was not true that the official representatives (especially those of the cultural organization, the Domowina) did not know about this. However, it was official policythat there were 100,000 speakers of Sorbian (both US and LS), and this number
was propagated until the end of the GDR. Thus, Nowusch (1988: 13) writes: “In derpolitisch-​staatlichen Tätigkeit wird die sorbische Bevölkerung mit annähernd 100
000 Menschen beziffert. Der Gesamtzahl liegen demographische Untersuchungenzugrunde […].” [For the purposes of political and state activity the Sorbian population numbers almost 100,000 persons. This overall number is based on demographic research […].] (The strangely obfuscated wording is probably an indicationof the author’s disbelief.) Actually, field research carried out in the 1950s had alreadyrevealed the number to be not more than 80,000 but these results could not be
published in the GDR (see Elle 1995: 241–​265).

140

Roland Marti

often non-​native or US native speakers, used standard language (i.e., the ‘new’ LS)in most, if not all contexts, supported puristic tendencies and adhered to spelling
pronunciation. Few were those that tried to find a middle road. Therefore, LM policies that were intended to strengthen LS but were ill-​conceived were countered by
the reaction of many, if not most native speakers that decided not to transmit thelanguage to the next generation. The result was a dramatic drop in the number of
speakers of LS during the years of the GDR in spite of all the efforts to support LS,
albeit only in its ‘new’ form.40 It has to be admitted, though, that other factors, notrelated to LM, were important, too (industrialization, collectivization in farming,‘devastation’ of Sorbian villages due to strip mining etc.). The fact that the drop in
the number of speakers was much more pronounced in the case of LS, however,allows for the conclusion that in the case of LS the ill-​conceived organized LM wasan important factor.

6 D evelopment after reunification
The reunification of Germany in 1990 brought with it changes for the citizens of
the former GDR in almost all areas of life, and the Sorbs were no exception. In
these times of change, it was important for the Sorbs that they were guaranteed
continued protection and support in the treaty of reunification. In the future, however, it was not the republic that would be responsible for them: In the context of
Sorbian, and in particular LS, the most important change was the substitution ofcentralism by federalism. Cultural matters (and minority questions were considered to belong to the domain of culture, at least according to the official view of
the Federal Republic of Germany) were the responsibility of the individual states,
not of the republic as a whole.41 Both states where Sorbs lived, i.e., the Free Stateof Saxony and the State of Brandenburg, in due time enacted each a Sorbian law(to replace the old Sorbian law of 1948 and the Ordinance of 1950, respectively)
and passed regulations regarding teaching, bilingual inscriptions, the use of thelanguage in official contexts etc.
This originally merely administrative reordering gave a real boost to a widespread wish among speakers of LS to shake off the shackles of ‘Budyšin/​Bautzen
centralism.’ This took on many different forms. One of them was the fact that some
Lower Sorbs did not want to be referred to as Sorben [Sorbs] and their language as

40 Fieldwork in selected communities carried out in the 1990s and an extrapolation
based on it arrived at a maximum of 7,000 speakers mastering LS more or less fluently(Jodlbauer, Spiess & Steenwijk 2001: 39). For a detailed description of the intergenerational language change from LS to German in one village, see the case study by
Norberg (1996).
41 The republic acted only as a subsidiary in financial matters, taking over half of thebudget of the Załožba za serbski lud [Foundation for the Sorbian People], the rest
being financed by Saxony (two thirds) and Brandenburg (one third).

Language management from above, from outside

141

sorbisch [Sorbian] in German official texts, claiming that Sorben referred to Upper
Sorbs only and sorbisch either to US or the ‘new’ LS language. The discussions on
this topic were very heated and have not yet abated completely. This forced theState of Brandenburg to choose the politically correct formulations Sorben/​Wenden
and sorbisch/​wendisch in official publications. The reaction of the state shows thatit took into consideration the different opinions of the Lower Sorbs when making
a decision.
More interesting from the point of view of LM, however, are the changes thattook place in the language itself. The first sign of change was a different attitude
towards the LS dialects that were now treated as a source of enrichment for standard LS rather than a depraved form of it. So elderly native speakers (often grand-​or even great-​grandparents) were invited to day nurseries and kindergartens to
introduce the young generation to dialectal LS,42 and interview partners in the
media could use their language (including the Germanisms it was peppered with)without running the risk of being corrected. As a further result of this opening-​up
towards LS as spoken by native speakers the spelling pronunciation that had been
enforced before was abandoned in the media and later on in teaching as well.43
This, however, required changes in the orthography, viz. a reform of the reform,
since practically all young speakers of LS have learned the language at school andrely on the written form for the pronunciation.
Thus, the Dolnoserbska rěcna komisija [LS language commission]44 started
work on correcting the reforms introduced after 1945. Their first decision, taken
in 1995, rescinded change 1 (i =​> ě), most likely because it was the least conspicuous, affecting only a few words. Still the uproar was considerable, so the commission was even more careful when advocating further steps. Change 3 (ó =​>o) was corrected only half-​heartedly at first, reintroducing ó (or rather the acute)
as an orthographic Hilfszeichen [auxiliary mark], then introducing it in the standard dictionary (Starosta 1999: 19), officially still as an auxiliary mark, and fully

42 Ironically, some of them might have been among those parents that in the past
had decided not to pass on the language to their own children, thus effectively
interrupting the intergenerational transmission chain.
43 I remember my surprise when, sometimes in the early 1990s, in the monthly TV
program in LS (Łužyca) announcers that a month before had used spelling pronunciation all of a sudden switched to a pronunciation that was closer to the dialects, anexample of simple LM that, however, soon became organized and is now considered
to be standard.
44 Originally, there had been only one language commission for both US and LS. It wasthen split into two sub-​commissions for US and LS, respectively. After the reunification of Germany, the LS commission declared full independence, changing its
name from Dolnoserbska podkomisija serbskeje rěcneje komisije [Lower Sorbian sub-​commission of the Sorbian language commission] to Dolnoserbskaja rěcnaja komisija[Lower Sorbian language commission].

142

Roland Marti

sanctioning its introduction in 2006.45 Change 2 (h-​ =​> w-​) remained in writing
but it was suggested that pronunciation should not follow spelling but rather dialectal usage, i.e., revert to [h]‌or a glottal stop. This half-​hearted decision caused
considerable protest again, and in church circles, the spelling with h-​ was (partially) reintroduced.46 These changes or partial restorations show that the previous reforms had truly been LM decisions from above and from the outside andhad never really been accepted. Thus, as soon as the possibility arose they wererevoked, the commission more or less followed the majority opinion of the Lower
Sorbs. Interestingly enough change 4 (ĆV/​CjV =​> CjV, i.e., the introduction of general jotowanje) did not seem to bother anyone, so the commission did not see any
reason to rescind it. To my knowledge, there are no individual attempts (simpleLM) to revert to the old practice.
The symbolically most important change in the orthography reform after
1945, however, seems to have escaped the attention of the language commission,
viz. the introduction of Roman script and analogous orthography. However, thefaithful took an interest in it, since in church there were still some Lower Sorbs
who had been introduced to the church language in black letter/​Gothic script andtraditional orthography and did not want to read church texts in the new script
and orthography. So in 1991 the liturgy was published in a bi-​scriptural edition(Dolnoserbska liturgija 1991), albeit with general jotowanje, and in 2007 the hymnal
appeared in a fully bi-​scriptural edition (Duchowne kjarliže 2007).47 It is clear thatwithin a few years no one will be left that is still used to black letter/​Gothic script
and traditional orthography, but it is noteworthy that the needs and the wishes ofa small group were taken into consideration in a rather large publishing endeavor(the hymnal is a book of over 900 pages).48

45 In fact, it was not a full return to the status quo ante because the rules were different
now and considerably less logical than the previous ones. They seem to reflect thepredilections of the author of the standard dictionary, but they were upheld in spiteof serious criticism. This would then be an example of individual LM that was forced
upon the complete linguistic community.
46 This even spilled over into the LS newspaper: in the main body, it uses w-​but on the
church page, the authors are free to use h-​or w-​. It is said that the main reason for
the insistence on the reintroduction of h-​ by religious Lower Sorbs is symbolic: acentral word for them is humóžnik [Savior], and writing it with w-​ is felt to be adesecration. This is a clear case of an orthographic shibboleth.
47 Cf. Meschkank, Frahnow & Pernack (2007). For some time, there was also a bi-​scriptural column in a regional newspaper but this attempt was soon given up.
48 The most recent case of reviving traditional script and orthography is digital: The
complete LS Bible (Biblia 1868) is now accessible online in three versions: Blackletter/​Gothic script and traditional orthography, Roman script and traditional
orthography, Roman script and analogous orthography (http://​www.dolno​serb​ski.
de/​bibl​ija/​info).

Language management from above, from outside

143

Almost of equal importance is a principal change in the attitude towards non-​puristic language that was formerly considered non-​standard. The LS media (newspaper and broadcasting) are now highly tolerant towards it, and this regarding
all levels of language. If formerly a word like burstak (from German Geburtstag[birthday]), quite normal in spoken LS, was replaced by narodny źeń or had to be
put into quotation marks, it may now be used more or less freely, and so it is withmany other German loan words. Interestingly enough there seems to be a newform of lexical purism at work, and its primary target are US loan words. Thus, theword zajmny [interesting], taken over from US in the 1920s (Pohontsch 2002: 268),
has recently fallen into disfavor in the Nowy Casnik and is now more and moreousted by interesantny. Even more remarkable: some grammatical constructions,formerly banned completely from official LS, have been reinstated. Thus, thedefinite and indefinite articles reappeared, albeit inconsistently, and so did thewordowaś/​hordowaś passive, both of them formerly primary targets of purism. The
reasons for these changes are manifold: bringing standard LS closer to the spoken
varieties and here especially the dialects, marking the independence of LS (especially with regard to US) after a long period that was perceived by many as one
of US dominance, perhaps also the wish to make LS more easily accessible to the
new speakers with German as a native language. This last aspect is particularly
important since the almost complete absence of young native speakers of LS madeit imperative to install a revitalization program (under the name Witaj [welcome])
since 1998 and to take into consideration the particular needs of this new group of
speakers of LS.
The changes in the organized LM are very noticeable. The top-​down, rigid, andinstitution-​based tradition of the GDR has been replaced by a more tolerant andindividualized approach that is essentially more bottom-​up. The US influence thatwas so pervasive previously and resented by many has all but disappeared. Perhaps even more important is the fact that this new kind of LM is closely monitoredby the speech community as a whole and flexible if problems arise. A case in pointis the compromise found regarding h-​ and w-​, allowing for a deviation from thenorm in church publications.

7 C onclusion or: What can be learnt from the case ofLower Sorbian?
Looking back on the linguistic history of Sorbian and later LS it can be stated thatit shared the fate of many, if not most, minority languages: the area where it was
spoken diminished in favor of the majority language, German, because speakers
did not transmit the language to the next generation for a variety of reasons. This
process of assimilation intensified in the 19th and 20th centuries due to the process of modernization and official measures. Up to the 20th century, the language
was mainly supported by the church through its publications but it was only marginally subjected to major changes since there were no institutions that could

144

Roland Marti

have enforced them. LM was thus a largely individual process, most visible in theelaboration of a written, later standard language by a few individual actors withauthority based on expertise, and in the decisions of Sorbian-​speaking parents
either to conserve the minority language and pass it on to the next generation or
to switch to German. It also was an internal LS affair.
This changed completely in the GDR. The new actors, claiming to come to therescue of LS,49 who had the power to introduce fundamental changes in LM, wereperceived as representatives of institutions (the state and the party) responsible forthe destruction of the two main pillars of traditional LS life: the church, the traditional mainstay of LS50 that was completely ousted from public life, and the traditional rural community of small farms that was broken up by collectivization. On
the level of the language itself, they proclaimed revolution instead of continuity.
This kind of aggressive LM from the outside and from above led to reactions fromthe speech community that resulted in the exact opposite of what was intended: adissociation from ‘official’ LS and, worse still, a refusal to pass on the language
to the next generation. Since in the context of a totalitarian state the effects ofofficial measures could not be evaluated (or if they were, negative results could
not be published), it was not possible to remedy the situation. This could only bedone after the reunification of Germany, and many of the measures proposed andintroduced since then point to a direction in the development of LM that is more
adequate for the particular situation of an endangered minority language. The only
problem is that they are too late as far as the traditional speech community is concerned (the dialects are doomed). Moreover, the community of ‘new’ speakers isstill far from being stable.
The example of LS shows that LM in the case of minority languages is more
complicated and requires more dexterity than in the case of ‘normal’ languages.
Above all, it calls for permanent evaluation and readjustment of measures in order
to avoid negative consequences.

References
Bartels, H. (2006) Wordowaś: Wó ranych wopytach wutłocowanja póžyconki[Wordowaś: On Early Attempts to Eliminate a Loanword]. Lětopis 53 (2), 90–​103.
Biblia (1868) Biblia abo to zełe Sswěte Pißmo Starego a Nowego Teſ﻿tamenta, doßerſkeje rėcy pſcheſ﻿tawjone, wot nowotki pilńe pſeglėdane a pſcheporėżane [The49 There is no doubt that they were convinced to fight for the right cause. They invested
a lot of enthusiasm and were often unable to understand the unfriendly reactions of
those they had come to support.
50 Little did it matter that there were only a few churches left where church service
was held in LS: still it was traditional to sing hymns in LS, and religious traditions
such as Easter singing kept the language alive.

Language management from above, from outside

145

Bible or the Complete Holy Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament
Translated into the Sorbian Language, Diligently Reviewed and Corrected oncemore]. Halle: Canstein. On WWW at http://​www.dolno​serb​ski.de/​bibl​ija/​info.
Accessed July 22, 2019.
Buliš, J. (2017) The introduction of the Reformation: An example of the “Lusatian
uncertainty principle”. In J. Malink (ed) Five Centuries: The Wends and the Reformation. Austin: Concordia University Press; Serbin: The Wendish Press, 6–​11.
Dolnoserbska liturgija (1991) Bautzen: Domowina-​Verlag.
Elle, L. (1995) Sprachenpolitik in der Lausitz. Eine Dokumentation 1949 bis 1989
[Language Policy in Lusatia. A Documentation 1949–​1989]. Bautzen: Domowina-​
Verlag.
Faska, H. (ed) (1998) Serbšćina [Sorbian]. Opole: Uniwersytet Opolski –​Instytut
Filologii Polskiej.
Fasske, H. (1985) The historical, economic and political bases of the formation anddevelopment of the Sorbian literary languages. In G. Stone & D. S. Worth (eds)
The Formation of the Slavonic Literary Languages. Proceedings of a Conference
Held in Memory of Robert Auty and Anne Pennington at Oxford 6–​11 July 1981.
Columbus: Slavica Publishers, 61–​69.
Galmiche, X. (2001) Romaine contre gothique: aspects culturels des options
alphabétiques et typographiques dans les Pays tchèques au XIXe siècle [Roman
against Gothic: Cultural aspects of alphabetic and typographic alternatives in
Bohemia in the 19th century]. Slavica occitania 12, 191–​216.
Hentschel, G., Taranenko, O. & Zaprudski, S. (eds) (2014) Trasjanka und Suržyk –​gemischte weißrussisch-​russische und ukrainisch-​russische Rede. Sprachlicher Inzest
in Weißrussland und der Ukraine? [Trasjanka and Suržyk: Mixed Belarusian-​
Russian and Ukrainian-​Russian Speech. Linguistic Incest in Belarus and the
Ukraine?]. Frankfurt on the Main: Peter Lang.
Herrmann, J. (1985) Die Slawen in Deutschland. Geschichte und Kultur der slawischen
Stämme westlich von Oder und Neiße vom 6. bis 12. Jahrhundert; ein Handbuch[The Slavs in Germany. History and Culture of the Slavic Tribes to the West ofOder and Neisse from the 6th to the 12th Century]. Berlin: Akademie-​Verlag.
Hórnik, M. (1880) Wutworjenje našeje spisowneje rěče a jeje zbliženje zdelnjoserbskej [The elaboration of our standard language and its convergencewith Lower Sorbian]. Časopis Maćicy Serbskeje 33, 155–​164.
Jenč, H. & Starosta, M. (1998) Leksika [Vocabulary]. In Faska, H. (ed) Serbšćina
[Sorbian]. Opole: Uniwersytet Opolski –​Instytut Filologii Polskiej, 238–​255.
Jodlbauer, R., Spiess, G. & Steenwijk, H. (2001) Die aktuelle Situation derniedersorbischen Sprache: Ergebnisse einer soziolinguistischen Untersuchung derJahre 1993–​1995 [The Present Situation of Lower Sorbian: Results of a Sociolinguistic Inquiry, Conducted in the Years 1993 to 1995]. Bautzen: Domowina-​
Verlag.

146

Roland Marti

Kimura, G. C. (2014) Language management as a cyclical process: A case study ofprohibiting Sorbian in the workplace. Slovo a slovesnost 75 (4), 255–​270.
Kimura, G. C. (2015) Spracherhalt als Prozess: Elemente des kirchlichen
Sprachmanagements bei den katholischen Sorben [Language maintenance as aprocess: Elements of ecclesiastical language management among the Catholic
Sorbs]. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 232, 13–​32.
Kollár, J. (1929) Rozpravy o slovanské vzájemnosti [Articles on Slavic Mutuality].
Prague: Slovanský ústav.
Malink, J. (1983) Die Beziehungen Martin Luthers zu den Sorben [The relationshipbetween Martin Luther and the Sorbs]. Lětopis B 30 (1), 54–​70.
Malink, J. (ed) (2017a) Five Centuries: The Wends and the Reformation. Austin: Concordia University Press; Serbin: The Wendish Press.
Malink, J. (2017b) Luther, Melanchthon and the Wends. In J. Malink (ed) Five Centuries: The Wends and the Reformation. Austin: Concordia University Press;
Serbin: The Wendish Press, 1–​5.
Meschkank, W., Frahnow G. & M. Pernack (2007) Duchowne kjarliže.
Bautzen: Domowina-​Verlag.
Moller, A. (1959) Niedersorbisches Gesangbuch und Katechismus [Lower Sorbian
Hymnal and Catechism]. Berlin: Akademie-​Verlag [Budissin 1574].
Muka, E. (1881) Frenceliana II: Abraham Frencel jako serbski rěčnicaŕ [Frenceliana
II: Abraham Frencel as a Sorbian linguist]. Časopis Maćicy Serbskeje 34, 69–​78.
Nekvapil, J. (2007) On the relationship between small and large Slavic languages.
International Journal of the Sociology of Language 183, 141–​160.
Nekvapil, J. (2009) The integrative potential of Language Management Theory.
In J. Nekvapil & T. Sherman (eds) Language Management in Contact Situations: Perspectives from Three Continents. Frankfurt on the Main: Peter Lang, 1–​
11.
Nekvapil, J. (2012) From Language Planning to Language Management: J.
V. Neustupný’s Heritage. Media and Communication Studies 63, 5–​21.
Neustupný, J. V. (1989) Language purism as a type of language correction. In B. H.
Jernudd & M. Shapiro (eds) The Politics of Language Purism. Berlin: De Gruyter,
211–​224.
Neustupný, J. V. (2002) Sociolingvistika a jazykový management [Sociolinguistics
and language management]. Sociologický časopis/​Czech Sociological Review 38(4), 429–​442.
Norberg, M. (1996) Sprachwechselprozeß in der Niederlausitz: Soziolinguistische
Fallstudie der deutsch-​sorbischen Gemeinde Drachhausen/​
Hochoza [The Process of Language Change in Lower Lusatia: A Sociolinguistic Case Study of theGerman-​Sorbian Village of Drachhausen/​Hochoza]. Uppsala: Uppsala University.

Language management from above, from outside

147

Nowusch, H. (1988) Die Gleichberechtigung der Bürger sorbischer Nationalität in der
DDR –​verwirklichtes Menschenrecht [Equality of the Citizens of Sorbian Nationality in the GDR: A Realized Human Right]. Bautzen: Domowina-​Verlag.
Olesch, R. (1983–​87) Thesaurus Linguae Dravaenopolabicae I–​IV [Thesaurus of the
Polabian Language]. Cologne & Vienna: Böhlau.
Olesch, R. (1989) Gesammelte Aufsätze I. Dravaenopolabicae [Collected Essays
I. Polabian]. Cologne & Vienna: Böhlau.
Olesch, R. (1998) Okcent venst’ă recĕ –​Der dravänopolabische Wortakzent –​Akcent
wyrazowy w języku drzewiańsko-​połabskim [The Word Accent in Polabian]. Ed.
by H. Rothe & A. Lauhus. Cologne, Weimar & Vienna: Böhlau.
Pohončowa, A. (2000) Procowanje wo pśibliženje gorno-​a dolnoserbskego
pšawopisa po lěśe 1945 [Attempts to bring Upper and Lower Sorbian orthography closer together after 1945]. Lětopis 9/​47 (1), 3–​21.
Pohontsch, A. (2002) Der Einfluss obersorbischer Lexik auf die niedersorbische
Schriftsprache. Ein Beitrag zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der niedersorbischen
Schriftsprache [The Influence of Upper Sorbian Vocabulary on the Lower Sorbian Standard Language: A Contribution to the History of the Development of
the Lower Sorbian Standard Language]. Bautzen: Domowina-​Verlag.
Rinkevičius, V. (2017) Altpreußisch. Geschichte. Dialekte. Grammatik [Old Prussian.
History. Dialects. Grammar]. Hamburg: Baar.
Schuster-​Šewc, H. (1967) Das niedersorbische Testament des Miklawuš Jakubica
1548 [The Lower Sorbian New Testament of Miklawuš Jakubica from 1548].
Berlin: Akademie-​Verlag.
Schuster-​Šewc, H. (2001) Die ältesten Drucke des Obersorbischen. Wenceslaus
Warichius und Gregorius Martini: Eine sprachwissenschaftliche Analyse. Mit
Faksimiledruck, Transliteration und Transkription [The Oldest Printed Books inUpper Sorbian. Wenceslaus Warichius and Gregorius Martini: Linguistic Analysis
with Facsimile, Transliteration and Transcription]. Bautzen: Domowina.
Sloboda, M. (2009) A language management approach to language maintenanceand shift: A study from post-​Soviet Belarus. In J. Nekvapil & T. Sherman (eds)
Language Management in Contact Situations: Perspectives from Three Continents.
Frankfurt on the Main: Peter Lang, 15–​47.
Spolsky, B. (2009) Language Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Starosta, M. (1999) Dolnoserbsko-​nimski słownik/​Niedersorbisch-​deutsches
Wörterbuch [Lower Sorbian-​German dictionary]. Budyšyn/​Bautzen: Domowina.
Stone, G. (1985) Language planning and the Lower Sorbian literary language. In
G. Stone & D. S. Worth (eds) The Formation of the Slavonic Literary Languages.
Proceedings of a Conference Held in Memory of Robert Auty and Anne Pennington
at Oxford 6–​11 July 1981. Columbus: Slavica Publishers, 99–​103.

148

Roland Marti

Stone, G. (2016) Slav Outposts in Central European History. The Wends, Sorbs and
Kashubs. London & New York: Bloomsbury.
Thomas, G. (1991) Linguistic Purism. London & New York: Longman.
Zaprudski, S. (2007) In the grip of replacive bilingualism: The Belarusian language
in contact with Russian. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 183,
97–​118.

Ben Ó CeallaighInterests, power, and austerity in
Irish-​language policy 2008–​2018
Abstract In order to examine how macro-​level economic developments can contributeto the decline of a minoritized language, this chapter examines the case of the Irish
language in the wake of the 2008 economic crash and subsequent “Great Recession.” Thedisproportionately severe effects of neoliberal austerity measures on the Irish-​language
community are detailed, with particular emphasis being placed on the consequences ofsuch policies for the language’s heartland areas (collectively known as the “Gaeltacht”).
The chapter initially discusses the nature of neoliberalism and its crash in 2008, before
examining how this affected both overt and covert Irish-​language policy. The findingsof ethnographic research conducted in some of the strongest remaining Gaeltacht communities between 2014 and 2016 are then discussed to add empirical weight to the policy
analysis presented in the first half of the chapter. The effects of large-​scale unemployment, intensive out-​migration, the intersection of economic disruption and gendered
aspects of language maintenance, as well as the increased use of English-​language technologies as “surrogate child minders” by Irish-​speaking parents are all detailed. Language
revitalization policies, it will be argued, are fundamentally contraindicated to neoliberalpolicy prescriptions, and as such the Irish language received proportionally much greater
cutbacks than other sectors in the post-​2008 period, which was used as an opportunity
to implement a large scale “roll-​back” of state support for this sector.
Keywords Irish, Gaeltacht, minority languages, language policy, neoliberalism, austerity, language shift

1 I ntroduction
In attempting to explain the process through which languages cease to be spoken,
literature on language loss and extinction frequently cites “economic forces” as being
key to driving this process. Grenoble and Whaley, for instance, have claimed that
economics “may be the single strongest force influencing the fate of endangered
languages” (1998: 52), and similar statements by other scholars are commonplace.1

1See, for instance, Baker 2011: 62; Crystal 2014: 175–​176; Edwards 1984: 304; Herbert 2011: 403–​422; Kamwangamalu 2003: 227; Kaplan & Balduf 1997: 280; Leonard
2015; McColl Millar 2005: 26; Nelde, Strubell & Williams 1996: 7–​11; Nettle &Romaine 2000: 126–​147; Ó Ciosáin 2013: 362; Ó Huallacháin 1991: 123; Ó Riagáin
1996: 36, 2001: 206; O’Rourke & Pujolar 2013: 54; Phillipson 2008; Romaine 2006: 456;

150

Ben Ó CeallaighDespite the frequency of such declarations, as Grin (1999: 169) and Austin and
Sallabank (2011: 21) have observed, there are very few studies which have offereda detailed explanation of how precisely macro-​level socioeconomic changes contribute to the endangerment of languages, with most references to the topic being
more rhetorical than analytical in their nature.
Using the example of Irish as a case study, this chapter will take some tentative
steps to rectify this deficit in our knowledge. In order to demonstrate the power
economic forces have over language vitality, it will examine the Irish-​language
management regime and sociological change in Irish-​speaking communities in
Galway and Donegal in the mid-​and North-​west of Ireland during the ten-​year
period which followed the international economic crash of 2008. Ethnographic
data from Irish-​speaking areas (known collectively as the “Gaeltacht”) are used toillustrate some of the social mechanisms through which this macro-​level economic
disruption accelerated an ongoing process of language shift.
After the foundation of the Irish Free State in 1922 (known as the Republic of
Ireland post-​1937), Irish enjoyed a much greater level of institutional protection
than most minoritized languages, with use of the language being supported in the
public service, the education system and in the Gaeltacht. This support was particularly important for Gaeltacht communities, which are overwhelmingly locatedin poorer, peripheral areas in the west of the country. Although it is commonly
accepted that state commitment to the language revitalization project began
to wane in the 1970s, by which time the failure of fifty years of attempts to re-​Gaelicize the country was apparent (Ó Giollagáin 2014; Ó Riagáin 1997: 23–​24),
what followed was a relatively incremental withdrawal of state support for the
language. Nevertheless, when compared to other languages with a similarly sized
population of speakers, Irish was still well served with institutional supports evenafter this reduction in state commitment. This was especially true in light of some
important developments made in response to bottom-​up resistance to the withdrawal of state provision, such as the founding of Údarás na Gaeltachta (“The Gaeltacht Authority,” discussed below) in 1979.
Despite this legacy of support and its status as the first official language of
the Republic of Ireland Irish is categorized as “definitely endangered” by UNESCO(2018). In 2016, out of a total population of 4,757,956 in the Republic, just 73,803
spoke Irish daily outside of the education system, some 20,586 of these being
concentrated in the Gaeltacht (CSO 2017a: 8, 66). Furthermore, as will be demonstrated, the 2008–​2018 period has seen a significant weakening of provision forthe language, especially in the Gaeltacht. This has been the case despite a large-​
scale sociolinguistic report published in 2007 finding that in even the strongestof these distinct linguistic communities, Irish was under severe pressure and inneed of significantly strengthened policy interventions to ensure its continued
Skutnabb-​Kangas 2000: 436–​476; Tabouret-​Keller 1968: 113; UNESCO et al. 2003: 5;
Williams 1991: 4.

Interests, power and austerity in Irish-language policy

151

intergenerational transmission (Ó Giollagáin, Mac Donnacha, Ní Chualáin, NíShéaghdha & O’Brien 2007). While the census and other official data on which thisreport was largely based has been critiqued by some commentators as unreliable(Ó Broithe 2012; Ó Riagáin 2018), it nonetheless broadly reiterated conclusions that
had been previously reached in other research (e.g., Hindley 1990; Ó Cinnéide, Mac
Donncha & Ní Chonghaile 2001).
With the “Great Recession” which began in 2008 ultimately being a crisis of
the neoliberal model of capitalism, the first section of this chapter offers a brief
overview of what precisely is meant by neoliberalism. Ireland’s enthusiastic adoption of neoliberal policies over recent years will be described, as will the severityof the crash’s effects—​direct results of the neoliberalization of the Irish economy.
These background sections serve to set the stage for subsequent discussions of thereforms to Irish-​language management and to contextualize the extent of the withdrawal of state support for the language post-​2008. Following Harvey (2005: 19),
neoliberalism is understood as an expression of the interests and power of theinternational capitalist class. As such, this chapter offers a discussion of how precisely “language management” (Spolsky 2009) efforts are restricted by the powerof greater structural forces.
Section three will examine the consequences of austerity measures introduced after the 2008 crash on both the content and implementation of official
language promotion policies. Those areas which illustrate “covert” language policy(Shohamy 2006)—​such as the vastly disproportionate level of cuts received by Irish-​language promotion bodies—​will be discussed in section four. The radical reforms
implemented in the Irish-​language management regime after the 2008 economic
crash will be used to demonstrate how the interests of international finance tookprecedence over language revitalization measures, despite the pressing need forsuch supports being well documented. Language revitalization policies, it will beargued, are fundamentally contraindicated to neoliberal policy prescriptions, andas such received proportionally much greater cutbacks than other areas in post-​
2008 Ireland.
Section five will draw on ethnographic data collected between 2014 and 2016 insome of the strongest remaining Gaeltacht areas in Galway and Donegal, including
extracts from fifty-​two ethnographic interviews conducted with a wide range ofcommunity members throughout this time. These data will be used to demonstratesome of the key ways in which the disruptions caused by the 2008 crash led to avariety of deleterious social consequences for the Gaeltacht, including increased
unemployment, widespread out-​migration, etc.
To conclude, the substantial 11.2% decrease in the number of daily speakers
of Irish in the Gaeltacht between 2011 and 2016 will be discussed, this decline
being understood as largely a product of the dramatic decrease in state support for
language revitalization efforts and the social dislocation caused in Gaeltacht communities by the economic crash.

152

Ben Ó Ceallaigh2 N eoliberalism and economic crisis
Originally theorized between the 1940s and 1960s by economists such as Friedrich
Hayek and Milton Friedman (Hayek [1944] 2001; Friedman [1966] 2002), neoliberalism, unlike more traditional neoclassical economic models, argues in favor of substantial state intervention in the market. Such intervention, however, should only
take place in favor of capital, with the goal of aiding profit maximization (Mirowski2013). By facilitating the generation of profit via pro-​business intercessions, it isargued that wealth will “trickle down” and provide the greatest benefit possible to
the greatest number of people, without any need for states to implement redistributive welfare policies, which were famously described by Hayek as “the road toserfdom,” inevitably paving the way for totalitarianism ([1944] 2001).
Having developed into a relatively coherent theoretical position over the past
several decades, neoliberalism has come to be associated with trade liberalization,
privatization, and, more recently, bank bailouts designed to defend the interests ofinternational investors. As Harvey explains:
Neoliberalism is in the first instance a theory of political economic practices that
proposes that human well-​being can best be advanced by liberating individual
entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized
by strong private property rights, free markets, and free trade. The role of the state is
to create and preserve an institutional framework appropriate to such practices […].
It must also set up those military, defence, police, and legal structures and functions
required to secure private property rights and to guarantee, by force if need be, theproper functioning of markets […]. But beyond these tasks the state should not venture (Harvey 2005: 2).

Although originally a fringe position, neoliberalism eventually began to emerge
as a hegemonic political project in the early 1970s. This saw the beginning of theend for the Keynesian welfare state, with Keynesian macro-​economic policy being
held responsible for the rate of profit declining globally, a period known as the“stagflation” crisis, which was the most severe economic disruption since the Great
Depression of the 1930s (Gamble 2009: 6).
In the context of this volume, it is significant that Harvey has argued that rather
than simply aiming to continue the economic boom of the post-​war era via theadoption of a more efficient set of macro-​economic policies, this period of reform
specifically aimed to exercise power with the goal of promoting one set of classinterests at the expense of others. Neoliberalism, he contends, was adopted inorder to restore class dominance “to sectors that saw their fortunes threatened by
the ascent of social democratic endeavors in the aftermath of the Second World
War” (2007: 22). This class bias continues to this day, with a wide range of literature demonstrating that austerity measures implemented to maintain the neoliberal system post-​2008 affected the poorer sections of society most severely (Bisset
2015: 175–​177; Varoufakis 2016). This fact has important implications for bothlanguage management regimes and the type of underdeveloped peripheral areas inInterests, power and austerity in Irish-language policy

153

which minoritized language communities are most often found (Nelde, Strubell &Williams 1996: 8), including, as will be seen, Ireland’s Gaeltacht areas.

2.1 N eoliberalism and the Irish economy
Since originally being adopted by governments in the UK and US in the 1970s, neoliberalism has become the dominant economic ideology of not only transnational
economic institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (henceforth “IMF”)
and the European Central Bank, but also the vast majority of the world’s nation
states (Harvey 2005; Allen & O’Boyle 2013: 13–​20). It was during the “Celtic Tiger”
period which began in the early 1990s that Ireland began to follow this trend,
enthusiastically implementing neoliberal reforms. Having earned a reputation as
the “sick man of Europe” during the early and mid-​20th century due to its chronic
underdevelopment, this time of high growth saw the country finally catch up withthe rest of Western Europe in terms of economic progress (Kirby 2010). The Celtic
Tiger economy was initially based on a heavy reliance on Foreign Direct Investment attracted via low tax rates, which led the country to become a tax havenfor transnational corporations (McCabe 2011: 41–​43, 164–​170; Garcia-​Bernardo,
Fichtner, Takes & Heemskerk 2017). By 2007, a massive property bubble had
emerged, with the construction sector comprising an enormous 25% of the Gross
National Product (Glynn, Kelly & MacÉinrí 2013: 38) and property in Dublin selling for prices that surpassed London, New York or Hong Kong (O’Toole 2010: 3).
As with most of Western Europe, the international financial crash of 2008 had
severe repercussions for the then-​booming Irish economy. In response to what
was reported to be its impending collapse, the Irish government opted to “bail out”
the country’s banking sector, which had been heavily invested in the international
credit default swap market that imploded so dramatically at this time. As Blythcomments when describing the extent of the crash’s impact on Ireland:
The combined result of the property-​bubble collapse and the banking system implosion was “the largest compound decline in GNP of any industrialized country over the
2007–​2010 period.” Government debt increased by 320 percent to over 110 percent of
GDP as the government spent some 70 billion euros to shore up the banking system.
Meanwhile, unemployment rose to 14 percent by mid-​2011, a figure that would havebeen higher had it not been for emigration. (Blyth 2013: 66)

The costs of the bank bailout necessitated a severe program of austerity, the effectsof which were still visible in state spending in 2018, which remained 10% below
2008 levels, despite strong growth having returned to the economy by this time(Taft 2018). As Mercille and Murphy (2015) have shown, the crisis was used to alarge degree as an opportunity to accelerate the neoliberalization of a wide rangeof public policy in Ireland, a tendency also visible internationally during this time
(Crouch 2011). Austerity, then, allowed for the intensification of neoliberalism’s
consolidation of certain class interests, serving to maintain “the power and154Ben Ó Ceallaighprivilege of some while extending and deepening the suffering of others” (Bisset
2015: 175).
While the issue has received only very limited attention in literature on either
public policy or language revitalization, Irish-​language policy also clearly exemplifies this trend of increased neoliberalization and the consolidation of certain classinterests, as the following two sections will demonstrate.

3 O
 vert language management post-​2008
As noted above, Irish is unusual in having a far greater range of institutional
supports than other languages with similarly small speaker bases. These supports
are a legacy of the important role the language revitalization movement played inpoliticizing the state’s first generation of political leaders who took power in 1922,
following the 1916 Rising and subsequent War of Independence (Garvin 1987: 80).
While Irish continues to enjoy a higher level of protection than most threatened
languages, the radical reform of public policy in Ireland since 2008 (Mercille &Murphy 2015) has seen the extent of this severely reduced.
Indeed, the two most significant changes regarding official Irish-​language management introduced in the last several decades—​the 20-​year Strategy for the Irish
Language 2010–​2030 and the Gaeltacht Act 2012 (Government of Ireland 2010,2012) were both adopted while the Irish economy was under the supervision of
the IMF, the European Central Bank and the European Commission, collectively
known as the “Troika.” These institutions, as Allen and O’Boyle note (2013: 13–​20),
are well-​known for being central to the propagation of neoliberalism internationally. As Crenson explains in his influential work on agenda setting (1971: 125),
the reputations of such powerful institutions often guarantee a favorable outcome
without them having to actively exercise power. Significant investment in Irish-​language management efforts would thus have been kept off the agenda purely
by virtue of the reputations of these institutions, the exigencies of the crisis andthe anxiousness of the Irish elite to end the recession as quickly as possible via
budgetary contraction. The contributions of Bachrach and Baratz (1963) and Lukes(1974) to the community power debate—​a seminal discussion in political sciencein the 1960s and 1970s about the nature of political power (Cairney 2012: 46–​58)—​
are of great pertinence here. As these authors noted, the so-​called “second faceof power” is often exercised primarily to keep issues off the political agenda andaway from public attention, as seems to have happened with the demands madefor increased support for Irish just prior to the crash (Ó Giollagáin, Mac Donnacha,
Ní Chualáin, Ní Shéaghdha & O’Brien 2007). Furthermore, as Hardiman and Regan(2012: 9) explained when writing at the time “[a]‌ll budget decisions must be clearedwith the Troika, fiscal performance is subject to quarterly reviews and Troika personnel are embedded in the core government departments.” Importantly for thepresent discussion, the conditions of the Memorandum of Understanding between
Ireland and the Troika “required a continued liberalization of Ireland’s politicalInterests, power and austerity in Irish-language policy

155

economy and increased marketization of previously protected public spheres”(Murphy 2014: 134).
It is therefore of little surprise that both the content and implementation of
the 20-​year Strategy and the Gaeltacht Act 2012 bear the mark of the trying economic circumstances which the country faced at the time of their introduction.
Ó Giollagáin has described at length the numerous ways in which the policy
provisions laid out in the 20-​year Strategy are inadequate to address the severityof the sociolinguistic crisis facing the Gaeltacht, amounting, in his terms, to a“fully-​fledged policy of abandonment” of the language revitalization project (ÓGiollagáin 2014: 102). While introduced as an official policy response to the Comprehensive Linguistic Survey on the Use of Irish in the Gaeltacht (Ó Giollagáin, Mac
Donnacha, Ní Chualáin, Ní Shéaghdha & O’Brien 2007), the Strategy paid little
heed to the recommendations made in the 2007 study. Despite the weak nature of
its proposals, the implementation of the Strategy has been extremely lackluster,with an implementation report issued by the Department of the Taoiseach (theIrish Prime Minister) at the quarter way point of Strategy’s lifespan in December
2015 containing a mere 225 words. Research commissioned in 2018 by TG4, theIrish-​language television station, showed that none of the structures proposedin the Strategy were functioning, and that the interdepartmental committee dedicated to its implementation had not met in over two years (Tuairisc.ie 2018a).
As Ó Giollagáin has described, policies such as the Strategy and the institutions
charged with their implementation “act as dismantlers at the behest of those inreal positions of power whose primary concern at this stage is to effect budgetarycontraction in the irksome domain […] of minority language support mechanisms”(Ó Giollagáin 2014: 116–​117).
The effects of neoliberal austerity measures are also very visible in relation to
the Gaeltacht Act 2012 which emerged from a proposal in the Strategy. As with theStrategy, the 2012 Act has been extensively criticized by both language promotion bodies and academic commentators (Conradh na Gaeilge 2012; Ó Giollagáin
2014: 106–​112; Walsh 2014). Belying the fact that effective language revitalization
was apparently not the sole (or even, perhaps, primary) goal of the act, in a statement of unusual candor the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum which accompanies the act claims that:
It is estimated that Part 3 of the Bill [regarding the abolition of the election for theboard of the Gaeltacht development authority, Údarás na Gaeltachta] will result insavings of approximately € 100,000 annually and up to € 500,000 every five years. It is
not expected that the remaining Parts of the Bill will result in any additional costs tothe Exchequer (Government of Ireland 2012: 44).

A key provision of the Act divides the official Gaeltacht into twenty-​six “Language
Planning Areas” and requires each of these to prepare a language revitalization
plan in order to retain their Gaeltacht status. This work has been delegated by
the department of state responsible for the Gaeltacht to Údarás na Gaeltachta. In
light of the severe budget cuts the Údarás has received since 2008 (described in156

Ben Ó Ceallaighthe following section), they have in turn delegated much of the preparation ofthese plans to voluntary community committees. Such committees are typicallyoverseen by a community development group which receives funding from theÚdarás. In many cases that I witnessed during my ethnographic fieldwork, even
where an area has many thousands of residents, these committees consist of only
a handful of individuals doing far more than their fair share of this importantwork. Although this work was delegated to volunteers, there was no coordinatedGaeltacht-​wide publicity campaign aimed at getting people involved in the process, due, I was told, to the Údarás not having sufficient resources to fund suchan effort. As such, many language planning committees consist in no small partof people who are employed by institutions which the Údarás funds, and who are
fearful of being defunded should their area lose its Gaeltacht status due to not preparing a plan. As a member of one such committee told me:
B: Go bunúsach tá Roinn na Gaeltachta ag rá […] le Údarás na Gaeltachta “caithfidh
sibh é a chur i gcrích nó bainfidh muid an t-​airgead díbh” agus tá Údarás na Gaeltachta
tar éis a rá leis an bpobal, “caithfidh sibhse é a chur i gcrích nó bainfidh muid an t-​
airgead díbh”. Agus tá, tá mé lárnach sa gcóras sin mé féin, ar an receiving end mar adéarfá, agus sin atá ag tarlú.
[B: Basically the department of the Gaeltacht is saying […] to Údarás na Gaeltachta“you have to do this or we’ll cut your funding” and Údarás na Gaeltachta has said tothe community “you have to do this or we’ll cut your funding.” And I’m central in thisprocess myself, on the receiving end as you might say, and that’s what’s happening.]2

Further to such difficulties surrounding community ownership and participationin this process, the provision of funding for the implementation of those plans
which have already been completed has been an enormously contentious issue.
Indeed, the € 100,000 per plan per annum being offered amounts to less than 50%of that requested in one case, and at the time of writing the respective local committee was threatening to disband itself and boycott further engagement with state
institutions as a result of their frustration with such inadequate support (Tuairisc.
ie 2017).
While the state, then, claims that the language planning process under the
Gaeltacht Act 2012 promotes community ownership and participation in language
revitalization, it in effect amounts to a classic example of the neoliberal “roll-​
back” of the state from an area which it had previously presided over, as famously
described by Peck and Tickell (2002). Thus, under the guise of democratizing the
Irish-​language management regime, the state is in effect able to withdraw from its
historic commitment to language revitalization. As Mercille and Murphy (2015)
observe, such withdrawal of the state from the provision of services previously

2Interviews were conducted in Irish. The translations given are the author’s own.

Interests, power and austerity in Irish-language policy

157

seen as core duties is entirely in accordance with the neoliberal project of privatization and restructuring.

4 C overt language policies in an age of austerity
As the previous section detailed, official language management measures introduced in the wake of the 2008 crash clearly bear the mark of the austerity policies
the Irish government adopted while attempting to navigate its way through themost severe economic crisis the state has ever faced. Further to the ignoring of the
20-​year Strategy for Irish and the problematic implementation of the Gaeltacht Act
2012, the full effects of this trend towards the neoliberalization of language policy
can perhaps be seen even more clearly in the extent to which public funded provision for the language was cut in the post-​2008 period.
While the decline in public spending in the wake of the recession had negative consequences for a great many sectors of Irish society (Nagle & Coulter
2015; O’Boyle & Allen 2013), provision for Irish language-​focused institutions
was hit particularly hard. An examination of the extent of these cuts allows for
an interesting insight into “covert” language policy, understood as the “hidden
agendas” which operate behind official policy, and which often have more significant consequences than the stated policies themselves. As Shohamy (2006: xvi)
reminds us:[T]‌he real LP of a political and social entity should not be observed only throughdeclared policy statements, but rather through a variety of devices that are used toperpetuate language practices, often in covert and implicit ways. Moreover, thesedevices, which on the surface may not be viewed as policy devices, are strongly affecting the actual policies, given their direct effects on language practice. Thus, it
is only through the observations of the effects of these very devices that the real
language policy of an entity can be understood and interpreted.

The reductions to the budget of Údarás na Gaeltachta offer one telling example ofsuch “de-​facto” language policy.
Initially established in 1979 to promote the economic development of Gaeltacht
areas which had long since suffered from mass out-​migration and unemployment,by 2008 Údarás na Gaeltachta had a budget of over € 25 million. By 2015, however, this had been cut by almost three-​quarters, to € 6.7 million. The significanceof this reduction becomes all the more apparent when compared to the budgetsof the Industrial Development Agency and Enterprise Ireland, institutions which
perform effectively the same duties as the Údarás, but in English-​speaking communities outwith the Gaeltacht.

158

Ben Ó CeallaighTable 1: Comparison of enterprise promotion agencies’ budgets 2008–​15Údarás na
Gaeltachta

Enterprise Ireland

Industrial
Development Agency

2008€ 25.5 million€ 56.4 million€ 78.5 million

2015€ 6.7 million€ 52.7 million€ 116 million-​6.6%+​47.8%% change 2008–​15 -​73.7%

Sources: Údarás na Gaeltachta 2009a: 9, 2016: 11; Enterprise Ireland 2009: 48, 2016: 42; IDA
2010: 36, 2016: 33.

As Table 1 illustrates, concomitant to the Údarás losing over 73% of its budget,Enterprise Ireland lost just 6.6% of its funding and the Industrial Development
Authority received an increase of over 47%. The budgetary adjustments of theselatter two institutions would seem reasonable at a time when the creation of
employment was a priority, with levels of un-​and under-​employment in Ireland
having reached a “staggering” 23% by 2013 according to the IMF (2013: 26). As
one of my interviewees commented when discussing the disproportionate cutsthe Údarás received, “níl dabht ar bith ach go bhfuil teachtaireacht áirithe ansin”(there’s no doubt but there’s a certain message there).
As seen in the following section, these cuts had significant impacts for theagency’s ability to attract businesses to locate in the Gaeltacht, with the Donegal Gaeltacht area in particular (which is in a very peripheral location) suffering
greatly because of this (see Section 5.1).
In light of these cutbacks, Irish-​language media reported in summer 2016that staff morale in the Údarás was “at an all-​time low” (Ó Gairbhí 2016). Wheninterviewing an employee of the agency in the week after this story broke, I asked
him how accurate such reports were, to which he responded as follows:
É: 100% cruinn. Tá rudaí níos measa ná sin fiú.
B: Dáiríre? Agus cén uair a thosaigh sé sin?
É: Trí nó ceithre bliain ó shin.
B: Mar gheall ar…?
É: Rationalization.
B: Na coinníollacha oibre agus é sin?
É: Yes. Tá an tríú cuid den fhoireann [imithe], nuair a imíonn daoine cuireann siad
cosc duin’ neacht eile a fháil. I bhfad níos mó oibre a dhéanamh le níos lú daoine[…] brú ón roinn [Gaeltachta] ag iarraidh an rud uilig a chúngú isteach, níl siad ag
iarraidh seo agus siúd a chur i bhfeidhm […]. Tá siad ar an chúigiú cuid den budgeta bhí deich mbliana ó shin. Tá siad ar 30% níos lú foirne, tá an foireann atá fágtha
aosta. Níl duine ar bith úr ag teacht isteach. Thit siad amach leis an cheardchumann.
Tá siad seo ag iarraidh na rudaí seo a bhrú ar aghaidh gan pairtnéireacht ar bith,
gan a ghoil i gcomhairle.

Interests, power and austerity in Irish-language policy

159[É: 100% accurate. Things are worse than that, even.
B: Really? And when did this start?
É: Three or four years ago.
B: Because of…?
É: Rationalization.
B: Working conditions and things like that?
É: Yes. A third of the staff have been laid off, when people leave we’re not allowed
recruit someone to fill their place. [There’s] much more work to do with lesspeople […] pressure from the department [of state for the Gaeltacht] trying tonarrow things down, they don’t want to implement this and that […]. They’re ona fifth of the budget they had ten years ago. They have 30% less staff, the staff they
have are old. No one new is coming in. They fell out with the trade union. They’retrying to push things through with no partnership at all, no consultation.]

Similar to the case of the Údarás, as the previous quote alludes to, the Department ofCommunity, Regional and Gaeltacht Affairs (which is also responsible for language
policy more generally) had 70% of its budget cut over the three-​year period from2008 to 2011 (O’Halloran 2016; Ó Murchú 2014: 210). Within this department the
Gaeltacht subsector was targeted for the highest proposed cuts, some 58% (Guthna Gaeltachta 2010). This was the case despite the fact that this time also saw the
introduction of the 20-​year Strategy for Irish and the Gaeltacht Act 2012 whichwere described in the previous section, which the department is ultimately responsible for, although some aspects of their implementation have been delegated tothe equally ill-​funded Údarás. Like so many areas facing neoliberal restructuring,these institutions now have more work to do, but fewer resources to do it. As aninterviewee from a major language promotion group told me:
M: [T]‌háinig an dá rud sin isteach ach níor cuireadh aon acmhainní breise ar fáil i
ndáiríre […]. In aon polasaí rialtais eile thuigfeadh siad go mbeidh costas ag baint lepolasaí chomh mór leis sin agus chomh fairsing leis sin a chur i bhfeidhm agus gombeadh acmhainní breise curtha ar fáil. Y’know a mhalairt de sin—​bhain siad airgeadón dá institiúid is mó a bhaineann leis ó thaobh cúrsaí maoinithe.
[M: Both of those came in but no extra resources were really made available […]. In
any other government policy they would understand that there will be costs associated with implementing any policy that is as big and far-​reaching as that, and extra
resources would be made available […]. [I]‌t’s the opposite of that—​they took moneyfrom the two biggest institutions that are involved.]

While the full extent of the cuts to Irish language promotion initiatives is far too
great to discuss in a chapter of this length, it is important to note that these cuts
to the Údarás and the department of state responsible for Gaeltacht policy led tothe discontinuation of a great many of those schemes previously used to incentivize the use of Irish and retain the population of the Gaeltacht. These included
housing grants for Gaeltacht residents, university scholarships for people from160

Ben Ó Ceallaighthe Gaeltacht and the support scheme for Gaeltacht parents raising their children
with Irish.
Although, as noted in Section 2.1, state capital expenditure a decade after therecession began had reached 90% of its pre-​crash level, capital expenditure on
Irish in 2017 was just one seventh of what it had been in 2008, further illustrating
the extent to which language management policies were transformed after thecrash (Byrne 2018: 8). Although the government’s National Development Plan
2018–​2027, launched in February 2018, stated that annual funding for Údarás na
Gaeltachta would increase to € 12 million over the duration of the plan, no timeline was given for the provision of such funds, which, at any rate, would amount toless than 50% of the funding the organization had in 2008 (Government of Ireland
2018: 50; Tuairisc.ie 2018b). Furthermore, as research commissioned by campaign
group Teacht Aniar subsequently demonstrated, the additional funding touted did
not actually amount to an overall increase in spending on the Gaeltacht, which,based on the figures provided in the plan, will still be well below 2008 figures come
2028 (Byrne 2018: 11).

5 M
 icro-​level sociolinguistic consequences of macro-​level
neoliberalism
5.1 E
 mployment
As noted above, one of the ways in which the effects of the crash and ensuingrecession were most clearly visible in Irish society was the rapid increase in unemployment. As the growth of the Celtic Tiger reached its zenith, the property bubble
which was so central to its development swelled to an enormous degree, withmore than one in five men employed in Ireland working in the construction sector
in 2007 (O’Connell 2017: 240). When the banks withdrew credit from property
developers in late-​2008 as a way to ensure the banking sector’s liquidity, however,the construction industry was plunged into crisis. By 2012 it had shrunk to makeup less than 6% of GNP (Glynn, Kelly & MacÉinrí 2013: 38) and employment in the
sector had declined enormously—​“[falling] by 163,000 between 2007 and 2012, a
contraction of over 60 per cent” (O’Connell 2017: 239).
Similar to the rest of rural Ireland, where, between 2008 and 2014,“[u]‌nemployment increased by double the rate of cities, at about 200%, largely
as a result of the collapse of the construction sector” (O’Donoghue 2014: 19), theGaeltacht was severely affected by this collapse. In accordance with other researchon the matter (e.g., Glynn, Kelly & MacÉinrí 2013), this decline in employment
opportunities in construction was often cited during interviews I conducted asa key reason for the recession having affected men more severely than women.
A woman in her early 30s from the Galway Gaeltacht reflected on this trend as
follows:

Interests, power and austerity in Irish-language policy161

G: Tá chuile dhuine san Astráil, na fir óga. Abair an dream atá comhaois liomsa, araibh mise ar an scoil leothab. Tá go leor acub imithe. Siod dream a bhí ag plé lesiúinéireacht, ag obair ar shuíomhannaí tógála i nGaillimh agus rudaí den tsórt sin.
Tá siad sin imithe. Tá leath de mo rang, déarfainn, san Astráil, nó i Meiriceá, nó i
gCeanada nó áit eicínt. Agus tagann siad abhaile faoi Nollaig agus imíonn siad aríst[…]. Ní dóigh liom go raibh éifeacht chomh mór sin ag cúrsaí ar na mrá.
[G: Everyone is in Australia, the young men. Say the people who are the same age as
me, who I was at school with. Lots of them are gone. These are the people who wereinvolved in carpentry, working on building sites in Galway city and the likes. They’regone. Half of my class, I’d say, is in Australia or America or Canada or somewhere.
And they come home at Christmas and then leave again […]. I don’t think things
affected the women so badly.]

Although, as Spillane (2015) describes, austerity measures often had severe
consequences for women, labor market participation figures bear this informant’s
instincts out: on a national scale, the male unemployment rate rose from 5.2% in2007 to 16.6% in 2012, falling to 10.4% in 2015. While female labor market participation remains lower in Ireland than that for males, it is notable that the risein female unemployment, itself substantial, was less severe—​increasing from 3.9%
before the crash to 10.3% in 2013 and falling somewhat to 6.6% in 2015 (O’Connell
2017: 233).
The contraction of the industrial sector during this time also had a disproportionate effect on males, with females in Ireland more likely to work in the service or hospitality industries. Although not as extreme as that of the construction
sector, the recession hit Irish manufacturing industry hard, with employment inthis sector declining by 16.9% between 2007 and 2012, only recovering partially (by4.7%) by 2015 (O’Connell 2017: 239).
The 73.7% cut to the budget of Údarás na Gaeltachta described in the previous
section meant that the manufacturing sector’s contraction affected the Gaeltacht
particularly severely, as the agency was forced to greatly reduce grant aid toindustry located therein. In 2008 the Údarás provided subsidies to 490 projects,
but by 2015 this had fallen by almost three quarters, to 124. The Údarás’ total
expenditure on capital grants in 2008 was € 13,944,440 but fell to € 3,001,968 in2015 (Údarás na Gaeltachta 2009b: 3, 2016: 3). As a result of this reduced aid, combined with challenging market conditions, many companies left the Gaeltacht
to relocate overseas, particularly, as one Údarás employee told me, “comhlachtaídéantúsaíochta, traidisiúnta […] comhlachtaí teicstíle, comhlachtaí leictreonacha”(traditional manufacturing companies […] textile companies, electronics companies). Indeed, this same interviewee told me in 2016 that there were just 430 people
employed on an Údarás-​managed industrial estate which had provided employment for 1,300 before the crash. By November 2017 it was reported that of the 516
commercial units in the Údarás’ property portfolio, 106 were empty, with 81 ofthese having been vacated during the previous decade (Ó Coimín 2017). Forty-​five162

Ben Ó Ceallaighof these buildings were in Donegal, providing a further striking visible illustrationof the effects of the recession on this county’s Gaeltacht community.
As the following section will describe, the widespread unemployment causedby the economic crisis led to a steep increase in out-​migration from rural areas
such as the Gaeltacht, with notable consequences for linguistic and community
vitality therein.

5.2 E
 migration
With underdevelopment and poverty being a fundamental part of life in rural Ireland for the majority of the 20th century, emigration became firmly entrenchedin the social consciousness of many Gaeltacht residents. Such was the extent of
impoverishment in the Gaeltacht in the 1950s (when the economy of most of thedeveloped western world was booming), that Ó hÉallaithe (2004: 174) has estimated that “two out of every three native Irish speakers” emigrated during thisdecade alone, typically heading to America or England. Although the Celtic Tiger
period had seen such a transformation of the Gaeltacht’s economic fortunes thatmany former emigrants were able to return (often, however, bringing monoglot
English-​speaking spouses or children with them), old patterns of out-​migration
were quickly re-​established after 2008. As migration scholars have noted, previous
emigration is typically a key factor driving current emigration (Brody 1974: 7).
With patterns of “chain migration” so well established in Gaeltacht life, the returnof this practice post-​2008 was all but inevitable.
As described in the previous section, those made redundant by the collapse of
key economic sectors such as construction were amongst the most likely to emigrate. While female emigration has historically been very common in Ireland, by
2009 the male rate of emigration was double that of females, reflecting the higher
male unemployment rates resulting from the contraction of the construction andindustrial sectors. Although the gender discrepancy amongst emigrants evenedout on a national scale over the coming years, in areas with much higher than
average numbers employed in agriculture (such as the Gaeltacht), a 2013 study
found that the ratio of males to females was still very high, at 64:36 (Glynn, Kelly& MacÉinrí 2013: 32–​33).
Although language shift can undoubtedly be driven by men in situations
where the nature of the job market makes their integration into networks outside the local community more likely (Spolsky 2009: 6, 23; Holmes 2013: 61), in
the Gaeltacht males are more often employed in domains which preserve Irish.
This, combined with the linguistic conservatism males often display (Gal 1979: 167;
Labov 2001: 292), and which can make them more likely to maintain minoritizedlanguages, means that the higher rate of male emigration had obvious implications
for the vitality of Irish in Gaeltacht communities. Indeed, several of my informants
who were apparently unaware of sociolinguistic principles commented on thegreater propensity of males to speak Irish. “’Siad na leaids sin is mó a labhródh
Gaeilge” (It’s those lads who’d speak Irish the most) as one young man, then aInterests, power and austerity in Irish-language policy

163

student in university, told me in reference to those from his home village in Galway
who had not pursued education beyond secondary level (see, however, Eckert &McConnell-​Ginet 2003: 283–​288 for discussion of gendered aspects of language
maintenance in various other contexts).
Interviewees frequently told me that they had close friends or family members
who had emigrated after the crash, and often commented on the void in their communities that this population loss created. As one informant in Donegal stated:
L: [N]‌uair a imíonn daoine tá tú ag sú nó ag tarraingt anam amach as pobal […] pobala raibh creidim láidir […] nuair a bhí obair agus fostaíocht agus achan rud ag dular aghaidh […]. Achan duine a imíonn bheireann siad píosa den phobal leotha […].
Achan duine a fhágann is buille marfach don phobal atá ann, sílim. Agus an rud atáann, tá tú ag cur le bánú na tuaithe […]. An méid tithe [atá folamh], chan amháintithe ach áiteacha a raibh fostaíocht iontu san am a chuaigh thart. Má tá tú ag tomaintthart agus má fheiceann tú na háiteacha atá fágtha fuar, fann, folamh a raibh beocht
agus solas […] ann am amháin, déarfá leat féin nach mór an trua […] ach mór an náireé fosta[L: [W]‌hen people leave you’re sucking the soul out of the community, a communitythat was I believe strong […] when employment and things were going well […].
Everyone who leaves takes a bit of the community with them […]. Every person who
leaves is a fatal blow to the community, I think. And it’s all adding to the depopulatingof the countryside […]. The amount of houses [empty], not just houses, but places that
employed people. If you drive around and if you see the amount of places left forlorn
and empty where there had been life and light […] you say to yourself isn’t it an awfulpity […] but also an awful disgrace.]

In Galway I heard similar narratives, with the more remote parts of that county’s
Gaeltacht having been hit particularly hard by emigration:
A: Tá ráta an-​ard imirce agus ‘sé is faide a théann tú siar ‘sé is airde atá an ráta imirce[…]. Tá an áit bánaithe ar fad. Is beag duine óg atá fágtha […]. Aon duine singil, óg tá
siad bailithe as an áit.
[A: There’s a very high rate of emigration, and the further west you go the higher itgets […]. The place is totally abandoned. There are very few young people left there[…]. Anyone single, young, they’ve left.]As Ó Giollagáin, Mac Donnacha, Ní Chualáin, Ní Shéaghdha & O’Brien (2007) haveshown, those areas furthest west mentioned in this quote are also those that are
most strongly Irish speaking.
While the recession was obviously an intensifying factor, it is not the casethat all of those who emigrated were doing so purely due to financial necessity.
As one of my informants noted, “[s]‌in sórt 50% economic. Tá daoine ag iarraidh
bogadh thart anyway” ([i]t’s probably 50% economic. People want to move aroundanyway.) Although population movement from rural to urban areas is not a newphenomenon, and indeed is a key feature of our globalized world, emigration rates

164

Ben Ó Ceallaighdid notably increase as a consequence of the recession. All of the fifty-​two key
informants I interviewed confirmed findings of other research (e.g., Glynn, Kelly &MacÉinrí 2013: 38) that the search for employment was a key factor in prompting
people to leave their communities.
While the overall population of the Gaeltacht between the 2011 and 2016
censuses declined only slightly, from 96,628 to 96,090 (CSO 2017a: 69), this small
0.6% reduction conceals considerable regional variation. Peri-​urban Gaeltacht
areas on the outskirts of Galway city saw their populations increase somewhat
during this time, while more peripheral parts of the Gaeltacht experienced significant population loss (Pobal.ie 2017). Toraigh and Árainn Mhór, Gaeltacht islands in Donegal, for instance, lost 17.4% and 8.8% of their population respectively
during this time, while Leitir Mealláin and Inis Mór in Galway also saw significant
reductions, 15.4% and 9.8% respectively (CSO 2017b).
Further to the differential rates of male and female emigration, those who moved
abroad were heavily clustered in the 20–​34 age bracket. On a national scale, Glynn,
Kelly & MacÉinrí (2013: 34) have shown that over 70% of emigrants were in their
twenties. This pattern would seem to also pertain to the Gaeltacht, with this cohort
being very noticeably absent at community events I attended during my fieldwork.
A diachronic view of census data would appear to corroborate this observation: in
the Galway Gaeltacht there were 10,972 in the 20–​34 age group in 2006, which had
fallen to 10,724 in 2011 and 9,339 in 2016 (-​15% in the span of a decade) (CSO 2012a,
2017c). In Donegal this same cohort decreased in number from 3,805 in 2006 to
3,672 in 2011 and then further to 2,833 in 2016 (-​25.5% in total) (CSO 2012b, 2017d).
With the 20–​34 age group being that most likely to form families and bear children, this decline is of obvious concern for intergenerational transmission of Irish
in Gaeltacht communities. As one interviewee bluntly observed: “[m]‌airfidh sé
sin an teanga, muna bhfuil daoine óga, cainteoirí dúchais, ag fanacht sa bhaile, sindeireadh” (that’ll kill the language, if young people, native speakers aren’t staying
at home, that’s the end).

5.3 F urther implications of the Great Recession for the vitalityof the Irish language
As stated in section one, even before the economic turmoil that began in 2008, theIrish language was under immense pressure in even the strongest Gaeltacht communities. The Comprehensive Linguistic Survey of the Use of Irish in the Gaeltacht,
published the year before the crash, predicted that Irish was unlikely to remain
the dominant community language anywhere for more than another 15–​20 years(Ó Giollagáin, Mac Donnacha, Ní Chualáin, Ní Shéaghdha & O’Brien 2007: 431).
Significantly, however, an update to this report published in 2015 observed that
language shift was occurring at a faster rate than predicted, stating that “based on
the findings presented here, [the 2007 survey] presented an overly optimistic conclusion regarding the sustainability of Irish as a community and family language”(Ó Giollagáin & Charlton 2015: 2, my translation), although this bleak picture

Interests, power and austerity in Irish-language policy

165

was challenged by some non-​academic commentators at the time (e.g., Mac an
Iomaire 2015).
The results of the 2016 census confirmed the findings of these reports, however, illustrating the extent to which language shift had taken place since the previous census in 2011. In 2011, the total population of the Gaeltacht was 96,238,
although only 66,238 of these claimed the ability to speak Irish, with the numberof those speaking Irish daily outside the education system (the study of Irish at
school is compulsory throughout the Republic) being lower again, at 23,175 (CSO
2012c: CD964, CD965). By 2016 the number of daily speakers outside of the education system in the Gaeltacht had fallen by 2,589 to 20,586, an alarmingly sharp dropof 11.2% since 2011 (CSO 2017e: EA055). Although the previous census in 2011 was
conducted at the height of the country’s economic difficulties, the lagged effectof macro-​level events such as the Great Recession meant that the full scale of therecession’s demographic and linguistic impacts were not fully visible in the 2011
figures, which included in-​migration and growth patterns more correctly associated with the tail-​end of the Celtic Tiger. Furthermore, many of the severest cutsto Irish-​language funding occurred after 2011. The effects of this turmoil can beinferred by contrasting the 11.2% reduction during the intercensal period of 2011–​
16 with the 1.4% increase in the same category between the 2006 and 2011 censuses.
In light of the various sociological consequences of the economic crisis describedabove (as well as many others which are beyond the scope of a chapter of thislength), such a higher than predicted rate of language shift would seem inevitable.
While the deaths of older people known to be more likely to speak Irish was set
to see numbers fall regardless of the economic crash (as noted in the reports cited
above—​i.e., Ó Giollagáin, Mac Donnacha, Ní Chualáin, Ní Shéaghdha & O’Brien
2007; Ó Giollagáin & Charlton 2015), the steep decline seen in the 2016 census
was greater than could be accounted for by this factor alone. As Spolsky (2009: 3)
reminds us, “language management in the family is partly under the control offamily members, but its goals are regularly influenced by the outside community,”
and this was clearly the case for Gaeltacht families as a result of the recession.
Further to emigration seeing the loss of a huge number of prospective parents inthe 20–​34 age category, many of those parents already raising children in the Gaeltacht were forced to work increased hours or take up work which involved longcommutes or periods staying outside the Gaeltacht. Such changes in family life
amounted to a further disruption of a domain key to Irish-​language transmission,
reducing the amount of parent-​child interaction which is so fundamental for the
reproduction of a minoritized language, with children and teenagers thus being all
the more likely to shift to English.
The increased use of technology in recent years was also something that a great
many of my informants mentioned in terms of explaining ongoing language shift
in their communities. While this increase was sure to have occurred regardlessof the economic crash, it is of note that, as many other studies have shown (e.g.,
Warren 2005; Rideout & Hamel 2006; Piotrowski, Jordan, Bleakley & Hennessy
2015: 169; Domoff, Miller, Khalatbari, Pesch, Harrison, Rosenblum & Lumeng

166

Ben Ó Ceallaigh2017: 279), overworked parents and those in lower income households are much
more likely to use television and computers as “surrogate child minders.” As agreat many of my interviewees told me, such technologies are a significant driverof children’s shift towards English. One 18-​year old who I interviewed explained
this to me as follows:
G: [T]‌á teilifís i mBéarla, tá idirlíon i mBéarla, má tá tú ag iarraidh goil ar Facebook,tá na posts ar fad i mBéarla. […] Bhí mé ar an X-​bosca agus ag labhairt i mBéarla lechuile dhuine air sin. So bhí, chaill mise an Ghaeilge níos luaithe ná [a dheirfiúracha
atá níos sine]. Chaill mise é nuair a bhí mé timpeall 13—​stop mise á labhairt den chuidis mó. Tháinig an teicneolaíocht isteach i mo shaol…
[G: Television is in English, the internet is in English, if you want to go on Facebook
the posts are all in English. […] I was on the X-​box talking in English with everyone
on that. So I lost Irish earlier [than his older sisters]. I lost it when I was about 13,
I stopped speaking it mostly. Technology came into my life…]

Another parent recounted hearing his five-​year old daughter speak English for the
first time during a holiday abroad:
P: “Cá háit a d’fhoghlaim tú do chuid Béarla? Ní raibh ’s agamsa go bhfuil Béarla
mar sin agat!” “Á a dheaide, tá scoil bheag Béarla agamsa mé féin thíos i mo sheomra
leapan ag coimhead Netflix”.
[P: “Where did you learn your English? I didn’t know you could speak English likethat!” “Ah daddy, I have a little English language school myself down in my bedroom
watching Netflix.”]

Furthermore, even when personally committed to the maintenance of Irish, parents
faced with the “cognitive load” of struggling to pay bills, mortgages and so on (asa huge number of the Irish population were during the crash) have more pressing
concerns than ensuring their children are getting sufficient Irish-​language input.
Addressing this point, one interviewee quipped that “[r]‌oimh an bpleanáil teanga
caithfidh díon a bheith os do chionn agus caithfidh jab a bheith agat!” ([b]efore
language planning you have to have a job and a roof over your head!) (see also
Spolsky 2009: 21). Inglehart’s conceptions of “materialist” and “post-​materialist”
values are brought to mind—​as is the widespread move away from supporting
post-​materialist causes that has occurred due to the decline of welfare stateprovisions under neoliberalism (Inglehart 2018). As the majority of Irish speakers
in the Gaeltacht are not employed in the language sector, Irish thus likely falls into
the category of “post-​materialist” issue for such individuals, as the previous quotesuggests.
With small and medium enterprises in rural areas being severely affected by thecrisis (CEDRA 2014: 45), informants often lamented the closure of such (typically
locally owned) businesses in their communities. The loss of these, I was told, saw
the contraction of another important domain in which Irish had previously been
maintained:

Interests, power and austerity in Irish-language policy

167

B: [N]‌uair a dúnadh na hóstáin agus an t-​infreastruchtúr sin uilig, ar chuir sé sin
isteach ar an…
É: Teanga?
B: Sea.
É: Chuir. Because sin na daoine uilig ag obair san áit, cuid iníonacha s’acu, cuid mac
s’acu, bhí siad ag fáil jabannaí samhraidh ann. D’obair mé féin cúig bliana i gceannde [na hóstáin a dúnadh le gairid], ní raibh an nduine le Béarla. Sin go háirithe
infreastruchtúr a bhí millteanach dúchasach ó thaobh teanga dó agus tábhachtach.
[B: When the hotels and all that infrastructure closed, did it affect the…
D: Language?
B: Yeah.
D: It did. Because the people working in those places, their daughters, their sons, they
were getting summer jobs there. I worked for five years in [one of these recently
closed local establishments], there was no English there. That in particular was
infrastructure that was extremely traditional and important in terms of language.]

The loss of such “safe harbor” domains where the use of Irish was strong, in addition to the decline of the construction and industrial sectors and the emigration thisprompted, thus contributed to the weakening of the all-​important “home-​family-​neighborhood-​community” nexus (Fishman 1991: 95) in which Irish survives.
When added to the flawed or non-​implementation of official language policies andthe severe cuts language management institutions and schemes received, it is oflittle surprise that the vitality of the language declined so significantly in the wakeof the 2008 crash.

6 C onclusion
The Irish state’s response to the 2008 financial crash and the “Great Recession”
which followed it, as has been argued by many commentators (e.g., Mercille &Murphy 2015; Allen & O’Boyle 2013; Coulter & Nagle 2015), ultimately aimed todefend the interests of international investors and the financial sector. It involved
the intensification of neoliberal policies of rationalization, privatization and adrastic reduction in state expenditure on social policy. This macro-​level policy trajectory had significant consequences for much of Irish society, including, as has
been shown, those areas where Irish remains a vernacular.
With the state’s response to the crisis being driven by a neoliberal paradigm
which sees no place for significant state intervention in spheres such as language
revitalization, a wide range of language management measures were severely
weakened post-​2008, thus placing the vitality of Irish in an even more precarious position than it had been before the crash. Although the Comprehensive Linguistic Survey of the Use of Irish in the Gaeltacht (Ó Giollagáin, Mac Donnacha, Ní
Chualáin, Ní Shéaghdha & O’Brien 2007) demonstrated in 2007 the need for significant additional interventions for Irish-​speaking communities, the Great Recession
which began the following year saw the discontinuation of many of those schemes

168

Ben Ó Ceallaighwhich had supported the Gaeltacht before the crash. Compounding this difficulty,
the unemployment crisis in the post-​2008 period and resultant widespread out-​
migration of young adults aged 20–​34, the cohort who are most likely to havefamilies and thus raise a new generation of Irish speakers, provided a significant
blow to the future intergenerational transmission of Irish in its heartlands. Despite
the Irish economy having returned to rapid growth by 2016, reinvestment in the
Gaeltacht is not taking place in a way anywhere near commensurate with the
cutbacks recently implemented, highlighting the way in which the economic crisis
was used as an opportunity to fundamentally reform state language policy throughneoliberalization (cf. Klein 2007; Mirowski 2013; Krugman 2015).
Eminent Irish sociolinguist Pádraig Ó Riagáin has observed that large-​scalelanguage revitalization efforts for endangered languages like Irish will cost morethan liberal democratic states have thus far been willing to commit (Ó Riagáin
1997: 283), a point with profound resonance in an era when so many of the world’s
languages are faced with near-​term extinction. The intensification of neoliberalpolicies since 2008 and the reduction in state support that accompanies this therefore has significant implications for those involved in minority language planningand policy. The structural power and embedded nature of capitalist class interests
in a globalized neoliberal economy provide a major challenge for revitalization-​
focused language management regimes, as efforts to counteract language shift are
ultimately destined to collide with the power of these interests in the way that
Irish-​language revitalization attempts have done since 2008.
As has been demonstrated, the power of elites to defend their interests meansthat culturalist endeavors such as the revitalization of languages seen to lack significant market value in the neoliberal economy are left in a deeply precarious
position. In light of this tendency, practical examples of which have been givenin this chapter, it is unsurprising that the vitality of the Irish language in its corecommunities went from bad in 2008, to much worse a decade later.

References
Allen, K. & O’Boyle, B. (2013) Austerity Ireland: The Failure of Irish Capitalism.
London: Pluto Press.
Austin, P. K. & Sallabank, J. (2011) Introduction. In P. K. Austin & J. Sallabank (eds)
The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1–​24.
Bachrach, P. & Baratz, M. (1963) Decisions and nondecisions: An analytical framework. The American Political Science Review 57 (3), 632–​642.
Baker, C. (2011) Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism. 5th edition.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Bisset, J. (2015) Defiance and hope: Austerity and the community sector
in the Republic of Ireland. In C. Coulter & A. Nagle (eds) Ireland UnderInterests, power and austerity in Irish-language policy

169

Austerity: Neoliberal Crisis, Neoliberal Solutions. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 171–​191.
Blyth, M. (2013) Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brody, H. (1974) Inishkillane: Change and Decline in the West of Ireland.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Byrne, S. (2018) An Plean Forbartha Náisiúnta agus an Ghaeltacht 2018–​2027 [TheNational Development Plan and the Gaeltacht]. On WWW at https://​teac​htan​
iar.eu/​proxy/​pdf/​ana​ili-​s-​ar-​chai​teac​has-​an-​rialt​ais-​ar-​an-​nga​elta​cht-​agus-​an-​ghaei​lge-​lea​gan-​deif-​22052​018-​g/​. Accessed June 23, 2018.
Cairney, P. (2012) Understanding Public Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
CEDRA (2014) Energising Ireland’s Rural Economy: Report of the Commission for
the Economic Development of Rural Areas. On WWW at https://​www.teag​asc.
ie/​media/​webs​ite/​rural-​econ​omy/​CEDRA​_​Rep​ort.pdf. Accessed June 23, 2018.
Conradh na Gaeilge (2012) Full Support for Opposition Dáil Walkout Over Gaeltacht Bill. On WWW at https://​cnag.ie/​en/​news/​138-​full-​supp​ort-​for-​opp​osit​
ion-​d%C3%A1il-​walk​out-​over-​gaelta​cht-​bill.html. Accessed June 19, 2018.
Coulter, C. & Nagle, A. (eds) (2015) Ireland Under Austerity: Neoliberal Crisis, Neoliberal Solutions. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Crenson, M. (1971) The Un-​Politics of Air Pollution: A Study of Non-​decision Making
in the Cities. London: Johns Hopkins Press.
Crouch, C. (2011) The Strange Non-​death of Neoliberalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Crystal, D. (2014) Language Death. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
CSO (2012a) Gaeltacht Area Galway. On WWW at http://​cen​sus.cso.ie/​sap​map2​
011/​Resu​lts.aspx?Geog_​T​ype=​GA&Geog_​C​ode=​03. Accessed February 19, 2019.
CSO (2012b) Gaeltacht Area Donegal. On WWW at http://​cen​sus.cso.ie/​sap​map2​
011/​Resu​lts.aspx?Geog_​T​ype=​GA&Geog_​C​ode=​02. Accessed February 19, 2019.
CSO (2012c) Statistical Product –​Profile –​What We Know –​A Study of Education and Skill in Ireland: Tables CD964, CD965, CD959 & CD960. On WWW at
http://​w ww.cso.ie/​px/​pxe​ires​tat/​Datab​ase/​eires​tat/​Prof​i le%209%20W​hat%20
we%20K​now%20-​%20A%20st​udy%20of%20Ed​ucat​ion%20and%20Ski​lls%20in%20
Irel​and/​Prof​i le%209%20W​hat%20we%20K​now%20-​%20A%20st​udy%20of%20Ed​
ucat​ion%20and%20Ski​lls%20in%20I​rela​nd_​s​tatb​ank.asp?SP=​Prof​i le%209%20W​
hat%20we%20K ​ n ow%20-​ % 20A%20st​ u dy%20of%20Ed​ u cat ​ i on%20and%20Ski​
lls%20in%20Irel​and&Plangu​age=​0. Accessed February 19, 2019.
CSO (2017a) Census 2016 Summary Results –​Part 1. On WWW at http://​www.cso.
ie/​en/​media/​csoie/​new​seve​nts/​docume​nts/​census​2016​summ​aryr​esul​tspa​rt1/​
Cen​sus2​016S​umma​ryPa​rt1.pdf. Accessed February 19, 2019.

170

Ben Ó Ceallaigh

CSO (2017b) Census of Population 2016, E2021 Population of Islands off the Coast2011 to 2016 by Islands, Census Year and Sex. On WWW at http://​www.cso.ie/​
px/​pxe​ires​tat/​Stat​ire/​Selec​tVar​Val/​Def​i ne.asp?mainta​ble=​E2021&PLangu​age=​0.
Accessed February 19, 2019.
CSO (2017c) Census 2016 Sapmap Area: Gaeltacht Ghaeltacht Na Gaillimhe [sic].
On WWW at http://​cen​sus.cso.ie/​sap​map2​016/​Resu​lts.aspx?Geog_​T​ype=​
GAEL&Geog_​C​ode=​372FE​C7C-​DB30-​4853-​B7D4-​BA6C2​DCAF​0F2. Accessed
February 19, 2019.
CSO (2017d) Census 2016 Sapmap Area: Gaeltacht Ghaeltacht Dhún Na Ngall[sic]. On WWW at http://​cen​sus.cso.ie/​sap​map2​016/​Resu​lts.aspx?Geog_​T​ype=​
GAEL&Geog_​C​ode=​865CD​4F3-​B2D8-​4405-​841E-​0AB4C​EA25​B7B. Accessed
February 19, 2019.
CSO (2017e) Statistical Product –​Profile 10 –​Education and Skills and the Irish
Language: Table EA055. On WWW at http://​www.cso.ie/​px/​pxe​ires​tat/​Datab​
ase/​ e ires​ t at/​ P rof​ i le%2010%20-​ % 20Ed​ u cat​ i on%20and%20Ski​ l ls%20and%20
the%20Ir​ish%20L​angu​age/​Prof​i le%2010%20-​%20Ed​ucat​ion%20and%20Ski​lls%20
and%20the%20Ir​ish%20La​ngua​ge_​s​tatb​ank.asp?SP=​Prof​ile%2010%20-​%20Ed​
ucat​ion%20and%20Ski​lls%20and%20the%20Ir​ish%20L​angu​age&Plangu​age=​0.
Accessed February 19, 2019.
Domoff, S. E., Miller, A. L., Khalatbari, N., Pesch, M. H., Harrison, K., Rosenblum,
K. & Lumeng, J. C. (2017) Maternal beliefs about television and parental mediation in a low-​income United States sample. Journal of Children and Media 11 (3),278–​294. doi: 10.1080/​17482798.2017.1339102.
Eckert, P. & McConnell-​Ginet, S. (2003) Language and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Edwards, J. (1984) Language diversity and identity. In J. Edwards (ed) Linguistic
Minorities, Policies, and Pluralism. London: Academic Press, 277–​310.
Enterprise Ireland (2009) Annual Report & Accounts 2008. On WWW at https://​www.ent​erpr​ise-​irel​and.com/​en/​Publi​cati​ons/​Repo​rts-​Publis​hed-​Str​ateg​ies/​Ann​ual-​Repo​rts/​2008-​Ann​ual-​rep​ort-​eng.pdf. Accessed September 20, 2018.
Enterprise Ireland (2016) Annual Report & Accounts 2015. On WWW at https://​www.ent​erpr​ise-​irel​and.com/​en/​Publi​cati​ons/​Repo​rts-​Publis​hed-​Str​ateg​ies/​Ann​ual-​Repo​rts/​2015-​Ann​ual-​Rep​ort-​and-​Accou​nts-​Engl​ish.pdf. Accessed September 20, 2018.
Fishman, J. (1991) Reversing Language Shift. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Friedman, M. [1962] (2002) Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Gal, S. (1979) Language Shift: Social Determinants of Linguistic Change in Bilingual
Austria. New York: Academic Press.
Gamble, A. (2009) The Spectre at the Feast. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Interests, power and austerity in Irish-language policy

171

Garcia-​Bernardo, J., Fichtner, J., Takes, F. W. & Heemskerk, E. M. (2017) Uncovering
offshore financial centers: Conduits and sinks in the Global Corporate Ownership Network. Scientific Reports 7 (1) 6246, 1–​10. doi: 10.1038/​s41598-​017-​06322-​
9.
Garvin, T. (1987) Nationalist Revolutionaries of Ireland 1858–​1928. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Glynn, I., Kelly, T. & MacÉinrí, P. (2013) Irish Emigration in an Age of Austerity.
On WWW at https://​www.ucc.ie/​en/​media/​resea​rch/​emi​gre/​Emigration_​i​n_​an​_​Age​_​of_​Aust​erit​y_​Fi​nal.pdf. Accessed May 1, 2018.
Government of Ireland (2010) 20-​Year Strategy for the Irish Language 2010–​2030.
Dublin: Stationery Office.
Government of Ireland (2012) Gaeltacht Act 2012 and Explanatory and Financial
Memorandum. On WWW at https://​data.oir​each​tas.ie/​ie/​oir​each​tas/​bill/​2012/​
53/​eng/​initia​ted/​b53​12s.pdf. Accessed May 11, 2018.
Government of Ireland (2018) Project Ireland 2040: National Development Plan
2018–​2027. On WWW at http://​www.per.gov.ie/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​NDP-​strat​
egy-​2018-​2027_​WEB.pdf. Accessed May 24, 2018.
Grenoble, L. & Whaley, L. (1998) Toward a typology of language endangerment. In
L. Grenoble & L. Whaley (eds) Endangered Languages: Language Loss and Community Response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 22–​54.
Grin, F. (1999) Market forces, language spread and linguistic diversity. In M. Kontra,
R. Phillipson, T. Skutnabb-​Kangas & T. Varády (eds) Language: A Right and a
Resource. Budapest: Central European University Press, 169–​186.
Guth na Gaeltachta (2010) Open letter to An Taoiseach and An Tánaiste about
the future of the Gaeltacht. On WWW at http://​guth​nag.com/​summ​ary.html.
Accessed August 12, 2017.
Hardiman, N. & Regan, A. (2012) The politics of austerity in Ireland. Intereconomics
48 (1), 9–​13.
Harvey, D. (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harvey, D. (2007) Neoliberalism as creative destruction. Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science 610, 22–​44. doi: 10.1177/​0002716206296780.
Hayek, F. [1944] (2001) The Road to Serfdom. London: Routledge.
Herbert, W. (2011) Endangered languages and economic development. In P. K.
Austin & J. Sallabank (eds) The Cambridge Handbook of Endangered Languages.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 403–​422.
Hindley, R. (1990) The Death of the Irish Language: A Qualified Obituary.
New York: Routledge.
Holmes, J. (2013) An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. New York: Routledge.

172

Ben Ó Ceallaigh

IDA (2010) Annual Report & Accounts 2009. On WWW at https://​www.ida​irel​and.
com/​IDA​Irel​and/​media/​docs/​About-​IDA/​IDA-​AR09-​24-​June(lr).pdf. Accessed
September 20, 2018.
IDA (2016) Annual Report & Accounts 2015. On WWW at https://​www.ida​irel​and.
com/​IDA​Irel​and/​media/​docs/​About-​IDA/​ann​ual_​repo​rt_​2​015.pdf. Accessed
September 20, 2018.
IMF (2013) Ireland: Ninth Review under the Extended Arrangement, IMF Country
Report No. 13/​93. On WWW at https://​www.imf.org/​exter​nal/​pubs/​ft/​scr/​2013/​
cr1​393.pdf. Accessed June 6, 2018.
Inglehart, R. (2018) The silent revolution in reverse: The rise of Trump and theauthoritarian populist parties. In R. Inglehart (ed) Cultural Evolution: People’s
Motivations are Changing, and Reshaping the World. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 73–​199.
Kamwangamalu, N. M. (2003) Social change and language shift: South Africa.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 23, 225–​242. doi: https://​doi.org/​10.1017/​
S02671​9050​3000​291.
Kaplan, R. B. & Baldauf, R. B. (1997) Language Planning: From Practice to Theory.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Kirby, P. (2010) Celtic Tiger in Collapse: Explaining the Weaknesses of the Irish Model.
2nd edition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Klein, N. (2007) The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism.
London: Allen Lane.
Krugman, P. (2015) The Austerity Delusion. On WWW at http://​www.theg​uard​ian.
com/​busin​ess/​ng-​inte​ract​ive/​2015/​apr/​29/​the-​auster​ity-​delus​ion. Accessed July4, 2018.
Labov, W. (2001) Principles of Linguistic Change: Social Factors. Vol. 2. Oxford: Blackwell.
Leonard, J. L. (2015) Revitalisation et documentation des langues en danger [Revitalization and Documentation of Languages in Danger]. Paris: Michel Houdiard.
Lukes, S. (1974) Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan.
Mac an Iomaire, R. (2015) Irish and the Gaeltacht –​They Haven’t Gone away, you
know. On WWW at https://​www.inde​pend​ent.ie/​opin​ion/​comm​ent/​irish-​and-​the-​gaelta​cht-​they-​hav​ent-​gone-​away-​you-​know-​31572​643.html. Accessed
August 19, 2018.
McCabe, C. (2011) Sins of the Father: The Decisions That Shaped the Irish Economy.
2nd edition. Dublin: The History Press Ireland.
McColl Millar, R. (2005) Language, Nation and Power: An Introduction.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Mercille, J. & Murphy, E. (2015) Deepening Neoliberalism, Austerity andCrisis: Europe’s Treasure Ireland. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Interests, power and austerity in Irish-language policy

173

Mirowski, P. (2013) Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste: How Neoliberalism Survived the Financial Meltdown. London: Verso.
Murphy, M. (2014) Ireland: Celtic tiger in austerity –​Explaining Irish path dependency. Journal of Contemporary European Studies 22 (2), 132–​142. doi: 10.1080/​
14782804.2014.902367.
Nelde, P., Strubell, M. & Williams, G. (1996) The Production and Reproduction of the
Minority Language Groups in the European Union. Luxembourg: Euromosaic Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Nettle, D. & Romaine, S. (2000) Vanishing Voices: The Extinction of the Worlds
Languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ó Broithe, É. (2012) Scéim Labhairt na Gaeilge: Feidhm agus Mífheidhm [The Irish
speaking scheme: Use and misuse]. In C. Lenoach, C. O﻿́ Giollagáin; B. O﻿́ Curnáin(eds) An Chonair Chaoch: An Mionteangachas sa Dátheangachas [The Blind
Alley: The Minority Language Condition in Bilingualism]. Indreabhán: Leabhar
Breac, 237–​268.
Ó Cinnéide, M., Mac Donncha, S. & Ní Chonghaile, S. (2001) Polasaithe
agus Cleachtais Eagraíochtaí Éagsúla le Feidhm sa Ghaeltacht: Tuarascáil
Chríochnaitheach [Policies and Practices of Various Organizations Operatingin the Gaeltacht: Final Report]. Galway: An tIonad Taighde sna hEolaíochtaí
Sóisialta, Ollscoil na hÉireann, Gaillimh.
Ó Ciosáin, N. (2013) The print cultures of the Celtic languages, 1700–​1900. Culturaland Social History 3 (10), 347–​367. doi: 10.2752/​147800413X13661166397184.
Ó Coimín, M. (2017) Cé mhéad foirgneamh folamh atá ag Údarás na Gaeltachta,cá bhfuil siad agus cén fhad atá siad le ligean? [How Many Empty Buildings
does Údarás na Gaeltachta Have, where are they and how Long Have they been
Available to Let?]. On WWW at https://​tuair​isc.ie/​ce-​mhead-​foi​rgne​amh-​fol​
amh-​ata-​ag-​uda​ras-​na-​gae​ltac​hta-​ca-​bhf​uil-​siad-​agus-​cen-​fhad-​ata-​siad-​le-​lig​
ean/​. Accessed April 4, 2018.
Ó Gairbhí, S. T. (2016) An caidreamh idir foireann agus bainistíocht an Údaráis ‘atan all-​time low’ [Relationship between Staff and Management of the Údarás ‘at
all-​time low’]. On WWW at http://​tuair​isc.ie/​an-​caidre​amh-​idir-​foire​ann-​agus-​
baini​stio​cht-​an-​udar​ais-​at-​an-​all-​time-​low/​. Accessed July 14, 2018.
Ó Giollagáin, C. (2014) From revivalist to undertaker: New developments in official policies and attitudes to Ireland’s ‘first language.’ Language Problems &Language Planning 38 (2), 101–​127. doi: 10.1075/​lplp.38.2.01gio.
Ó Giollagáin, C. & Charlton, M. (2015) Nuashonrú ar an Staidéar Cuimsitheach
Teangeolaíoch ar Úsáid na Gaeilge sa Ghaeltacht [Update on the Comprehensive Linguistic Study of the Use of Irish in the Gaeltacht]. On WWW at http://​www.uda​ras.ie/​media/​pdf/​002​910_​Udar​as_​N​uash​onr%C3%BA_​F U​LL_​r​epor​t_​
A4​_​FA.pdf. Accessed September 21, 2018.

174

Ben Ó CeallaighÓ Giollagáin, C., Mac Donnacha, S., Ní Chualáin, F., Ní Shéaghdha, A. & O’Brien,
M. (2007) Staidéar Cuimsitheach Teangeolaíoch ar Úsáid na Gaeilge sa Ghaeltacht[Comprehensive Linguistic Study of the Use of Irish in the Gaeltacht].
Dublin: Stationery Office.
Ó hÉallaithe, D. (2004) From language revival to language survival. In C. Mac
Murchaidh (ed) Who Needs Irish? Dublin: Veritas, 159–​192.
Ó Huallacháin, C. (1991) The Irish Language in Society. Coleraine: University of
Ulster.
Ó Murchú, H. (2014) More Facts About Irish. Vol. 2. On WWW at http://​www.gaelp​
ort.com/​uplo​ads/​docume​nts/​More%20Fa​cts%20Ab ​out%20Ir​ish%20(2014)%20-​%20He​len%20%C3%93%20Mu​rch%C3%BA.pdf. Accessed March 3, 2018.
Ó Riagáin, P. (1996) Reviving the Irish language: 1893–​1993: The first one hundredyears. In M. Nic Craith (ed) Watching One’s Tongue: Issues in Language Planning.
Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 33–​55.
Ó Riagáin, P. (1997) Language Policy and Social Reproduction: Ireland 1893–​1993.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Ó Riagáin, P. (2001) Irish language production and reproduction 1981–​1996. In
J. Fishman (ed) Can Threatened Languages Be Saved? Clevedon: Multilingual
Matters, 195–​214.
Ó Riagáin, P. (2018) Measures of Language Proficiency in Censuses and Surveys: A
Comparative Analysis and Assessment. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
O’Connell, P. (2017) Unemployment and labour market policy. In W. K. Roche, P. J.
O’Connell & A. Prothero (eds) Austerity and Recovery in Ireland: Europe’s Poster
Child and the Great Recession. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 232–​251.
O’Donoghue, C. (2014) Introduction. In C. Ó Donoghue, R. Conneely, D. Frost,
K. Heanue, B. Leonard & D. Meredith (eds) Rural Economic Development in Ireland. Carlow: Teagasc, 18–​33.
O’Halloran, M. (2016) State to buy almost 2,000 hectares in Dublin Mountains. On
WWW at https://​www.iri​shti​mes.com/​news/​envi​ronm​ent/​state-​to-​buy-​alm​ost-​
2-​000-​hecta​res-​in-​dub​lin-​mounta​ins-​1.2743​804. Accessed July 10, 2018.
O’Rourke, B. & Pujolar, J. (2013) From native speakers to “new speakers” —​problematizing nativeness in language revitalization contexts. Histoire Épistémologie
Langage 35 (2), 47–​67.
O’Toole, F. (2010) Ship of Fools: How Stupidity and Corruption Sank the Celtic Tiger.
London: Faber.
Peck, J. & Tickell, A. (2002) Neoliberalizing space. Antipode 34, 380–​404.
Phillipson, R. (2008) The linguistic imperialism of neoliberal empire. Critical Inquiryin Language Studies 5 (1), 1–​43. doi: 10.1080/​15427580701696886.

Interests, power and austerity in Irish-language policy

175

Piotrowski, J. T., Jordan, A. B., Bleakley, A., & Hennessy, M. (2015) Identifying
family television practices to reduce children’s television time. Journal of Family
Communication 15 (2), 159–​174. doi: 10.1080/​15267431.2015.1013107.
Pobal.ie (2017) Deprivation Indices. On WWW at https://​maps.pobal.ie/​WebA​pps/​
Dep​riva​tion​Indi​ces/​index.html. Accessed May 10, 2018.
Rideout, V. & Hamel, E. (2006) The Media Family: Electronic Media in the Lives ofInfants, Toddlers, Preschoolers and their Parents. Menlo Park: The Henry J. Kaiser
Family Foundation.
Romaine, S. (2006) Planning for the survival of linguistic diversity. Language Policy
5 (4), 443–​475. doi: 10.1007/​s10993-​006-​9034-​3.
Shohamy, E. (2006) Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches.
New York: Routledge.
Skutnabb-​Kangas, T. (2000) Linguistic Genocide in Education —​or Worldwide Diversity in Human Rights? New York: Routledge.
Spillane, A. (2015) The impact of the crisis on Irish women. In C. Coulter &A. Nagle (eds) Ireland Under Austerity: Neoliberal Crisis, Neoliberal Solutions.
Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Spolsky, B. (2009) Language Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tabouret-​
Keller, A. (1968) Sociological factors of language maintenance andlanguage shift: A methodological approach based on European and African
examples. In J. Fishman, C. Ferguson & J. Das Gupta (eds) Language Problems ofDeveloping Nations. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 107–​127.
Taft, M. (2018) Austerity’s Hangover. On WWW at http://​note​sont​hefr​ont.type​
pad.com/​polit​ical​econ​omy/​2018/​01/​aus​teri​tys-​hango​ver.html. Accessed March
5, 2018.
Tuairisc.ie (2017) Iarracht Roinn na Gaeltachta géarchéim na pleanála teanga aréiteach á meas ag Fóram Chois Fharraige [The Department of the Gaeltacht’s
Attempt to Resolve the Language Planning Crisis Being Considered by Fóram
Chois Fharraige]. On WWW at https://​tuair​isc.ie/​iarra​cht-​roinn-​na-​gae​ltac​hta-​
gearch​eim-​na-​plean​ala-​tea​nga-​a-​reite​ach-​a-​meas-​ag-​foram-​chois-​fharra​ige/​.
Accessed June 24, 2018.
Tuairisc.ie (2018a) Níl feidhm ar bith le haon chuid den struchtúr a bhí in ainm is
an Straitéis 20 Bliain don Ghaeilge a chur i gcrích –​taighde nua [No Part of theStructure that was Designed to Implement the 20-​Year Strategy for the Irish
Language is Functioning –​New Research]. On WWW at https://​tuair​isc.ie/​nil-​fei​dhm-​ar-​bith-​le-​haon-​chuid-​den-​struch​tur-​a-​bhi-​in-​ainm-​is-​an-​strait​eis-​20-​
bli​ain-​don-​ghaei​lge-​a-​chur-​i-​gcr​ich-​taig​hde-​nua/​. Accessed June 23, 2018.
Tuairisc.ie (2018b) Gan aon chinneadh fós faoi cathain a thabharfar maoiniú breised’Údarás na Gaeltachta [No Decision yet as to when Additional Funding will

176

Ben Ó Ceallaighbe Given to Údarás na Gaeltachta]. On WWW at https://​tuair​isc.ie/​gan-​aon-​chinne​adh-​fos-​faoi-​cath​ain-​a-​tha​bhar​far-​maoi​niu-​bre​ise-​proj​ect-​irel​and-​2040-​
duda​ras-​na-​gae​ltac​hta/​. Accessed June 23, 2018.
Údarás na Gaeltachta (2009a) Tuarascáil Bhliantúil agus Cuntais 2008/​
AnnualReport and Accounts 2008. On WWW at http://​www.uda​ras.ie/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​
ads/​2012/​06/​2009-​Ann​ual-​Rep​ort-​and-​Accou​nts.pdf. Accessed March 4, 2018.
Údarás na Gaeltachta (2009b) TÁBLAÍ 2008 Aguisín don Tuarascáil Bhliantúil/​TABLES 2008 Appendix to the Annual Report. On WWW at http://​www.uda​ras.ie/​
wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2012/​06/​2008-​Ann​ual-​Rep​ort-​Tab​les.pdf. Accessed March
4, 2018.
Údarás na Gaeltachta (2016) Táblaí 2015 Aguisín don Tuarascáil Bhliantúil/​Tables 2015 Appendix to the Annual Report. On WWW at http://​www.uda​ras.ie/​
wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2016/​12/​Tua​rasc​ail-​Bhl​iant​uil-​Tab​lai-​2015-​D.pdf. Accessed
March 5, 2018.
UNESCO et al. (2003) Sharing a World of Difference. On WWW at http://​unes​doc.
une​sco.org/​ima​ges/​0013/​001​323/​1323​84e.pdf. Accessed June 2, 2018.
UNESCO (2018) UNESCO Interactive Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger: Irish.
On WWW at http://​www.une​sco.org/​langua​ges-​atlas/​index.php. Accessed September 17, 2021.
Varoufakis, Y. (2016) And the Weak Suffer What They Must? Europe, Austerity and
the Threat to Global Stability. London: Bodley Head.
Walsh, J. (2014) An ceart ag an gCoimisinéir [The commissioner is correct]. Comhar
74 (1), 10–​11.
Warren, R. (2005) Parental mediation of children’s television viewing in low-​income families. Journal of Communication 55 (4), 847–​863. doi: https://​doi.org/​
10.1111/​j.1460-​2466.2005.tb03​026.x.
Williams, C. (1991) Linguistic Minorities, Society and Territory. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Nadiya Kiss

Key actors in the organized language
management of Ukraine: On the materialsof language legislation development andadoption1
Abstract The chapter highlights language management in contemporary Ukraine fromthe Euromaidan period (2013–​2014), during Petro Poroshenko’s presidency (2014–​2019)
up to recent developments under the president elected in 2019, Volodymyr Zelenskyi.
Based on an actor-​centered approach, this study provides a detailed analysis of language
legislation developments and adoption processes in different phases. The chapter
examines the interests of different social groups and the power relations between various social and political actors. Through the content of law texts, media discussions,political rhetoric and expert interviews, the research gives an overview of language
policy changes and competing interpretations of the language situation by various social
actors. The study also pays attention to describing conflicts that occur between the actors
in the process of decision-​making.
Keywords language management in Ukraine, actor-​centered approach, language laws,
language policies

1 I ntroduction
In contemporary Ukraine, language management is in the process of a vivid development. Since Ukrainian independence in 1991, language policy strategies havechanged many times according to the general policies of Ukrainian presidents andleading political parties. The history of language policy dynamics is described indetail in Besters-​Dilger et al. (2009), Moser (2014), Bilaniuk (2017) and in Azhniuk(2017). Moreover, Ukrainian language policy has been considered from different
perspectives in numerous studies—​from the historical and sociocultural (Masenko
2008), to ideology battles (Kulyk 2010), language and speaker rights (Pavlenko
2011), as well as multilingualism (Pavlenko 2013).
1

This chapter is a part of a larger post-​doc project “Language Policies in Contemporary Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova” which I am currently advancing in theframe of the LOEWE research group “Conflicts in the Eastern Europe” at the Justus
Liebig Giessen University, Germany. Therefore, in this chapter I will try to develop
a research model of actors in language management that I could further apply in acomparative analysis of contemporary Georgian and Moldovan language policies.

178

Nadiya Kiss

On the other hand, the very term “language management” is seldom mentionedin Ukrainian sociolinguistics (language policy and language planning are still themost frequently used terms), which creates a research gap for the presented subject. The exception is Spolsky’s work where he described early Soviet language
policy strategies (Spolsky 2011: 184) and highlighted the preservation of the Ukrainian language in Ukrainian diaspora communities in the USA (Spolsky 2011: 197).
Hence, in a detailed overview of language management in post-​Soviet countries,
Hogan-​Brun & Melnyk (2012) analyze the Ukrainian situation in different contexts,
including the underlying process of Russification during the Soviet era and explain
the main features of language management following Ukrainian independence,
especially in the sphere of education and minority languages protection. Morerecently, Csernicskó & Ferenc (2016) provided a chronological classification of
Ukrainian language policies from 1989 until the Russian-​Ukrainian military conflict began in 2014.
However, the Euromaidan revolution (2013–​2014), the Russian annexation of
Crimea in February-​March 2014 and its military aggression in Donbas (started in2014 and still ongoing) have stimulated grassroots movements in different spheresof public life, including cultural and language policies. Nowadays, the actors inlanguage management decisions are not only political parties and government
bodies, but also language activist groups and organizations. The goal of this project is to call attention to the chief decision-​makers in the process of language
management in contemporary Ukraine and to describe the strategies they use toachieve their goals.

2 M ethodology
Using the theory of language management by Jernudd and Neustupný (1987),
I would like to shed light on the changes in Ukraine’s organized language management after Euromaidan. Nekvapil gives a clear definition of the latter: “Organizedmanagement or also institutional management, […] is management performed byinstitutions” (Nekvapil 2016: 15). In addition, he defines the main goals for the organized management research: “It is certainly of particular importance for organizedlanguage management to identify language problems, i.e. such deviations from thenorm which are not only noted by individual speakers in particular interactions
but also receive negative evaluation” Nekvapil (2006: 97).
Therefore, I will analyze (1) which actors note the deviation from language use(in the Ukrainian context it is mainly about the use of the Ukrainian vs Russian
languages in such public domains as mass-​media, education, government, and parliament); (2) how they evaluate this deviation (especially in mass-​media discourses,
featured in articles, blogs, interviews etc.); and (3) what measures they propose toadjust to this deviation. As Kimura (2014) points out, language management theory
considers language policies to be a cyclical process. Therefore, it is important forthis research to look not only at the results of language policy, but maybe more
so at its formation and negotiation. Nekvapil and Sherman (2015: 1) themselvesKey actors in the organized LM of Ukraine

179

emphasized the importance of actors in language management: “Change can beinitiated by various actors, such as politicians, government officials or experts appointed to solve language problems.” Furthermore, they emphasize an analysis of
the “interplay of bottom-​up and top-​down” (Nekvapil & Sherman 2015: 2). The
actor-​centric approach is crucial for this study, since the depiction of the involved
actors assists in highlighting power and interest relations.
In this research, I also use a triangulation method, the main principle of which
is an analysis of different sources and various discourses. Therefore, the material
for this research is composed of laws and draft laws on language issues, and related
mass-​media discussions, political rhetoric texts, as well as ten expert interviews
conducted in 2018 in Kyiv, Ukraine. The experts were selected via a “snowball technique,” starting firstly with members of the working group on the language law
and then asking for further contacts. As an interviewer, I tried to ask in detail aboutorganized language management process, the role of different actors and theirinfluence on the decision-​making process. It is important to underline that it waspartially a “participant observation,” since I am Ukrainian with Ukrainian as mymother tongue, was born and educated in Ukraine, previously worked at a Ukrainian university for a number of years and am myself a member of the language
policy expert community. I am aware of the fact that my personal language ideologies could partly affect my research, which is why the critical discourse approach
was chosen as part of my methodology as well.
Therefore, in this chapter I will present the information about the actors who
try to influence language policies in Ukraine (e.g., deputies, journalists, linguists,
language activists etc.), the direction of change they choose, the political interests
they represent, the coalitions they form, as well as the specific measures proposedin the laws and the ensuing reactions.

3 “Actor-​centered approach” in language policies analysis
Language policy and planning (LPP) theory represents a wide spectrum of different
approaches and methodological tools. In this research, I use an actor-​centeredanalysis, since it allows us to highlight the main discursive events in contemporary Ukrainian language policies of, including such factors as power and interests.
Therefore, this research seeks to understand which actors form, develop and (re)negotiate the present language policies in Ukraine.
Even in traditional LPP theory, which is often portrayed as idealistic and oriented towards a top-​down present perspective, the role of actors is understood andunderlined. For instance, Cooper proposed an accounting scheme for the researchon language planning in which he defined several types of actors, namely—​formal
elites, influential, counter-​elites, and non-​elite policy implementers (Cooper
1989: 98). Grounding his scheme in behavioristic theory, Cooper counted otherfactors that were later summarized briefly by Hornberger (2005: 24): “Cooper’s accounting framework, organized around the question ‘What actors attempt to influence what behaviors of which people for what ends under what conditions by what

180

Nadiya Kissmeans through what decision-​making process with what effect?’.” Hornberger, inturn, builds up her integrative model of LPP analysis, taking inspiration from theobservations of the classical approach. Hence, the notion of actors has disappeared
from this model, which concentrated more on the goals of language policies andthe different processes within it than on issues of power, interest and agency. In addition, Dorner uses Cooper’s question scheme to build-​up her research tools investigating language policies concerning minority groups. As she assumed, “language
policy and planning processes as an example of social human action are highly
dynamic and therefore characterized by and dependent on the involvement of allsocial actors at all social levels” (Dorner 2012: 157).
The classical work by Jernudd and Neustupný (1987) describes the notions of
linguistic (communicative) and non-​linguistic (symbolic) interests. These two varieties of the interests involve different social groups. Further, the position of actors
can change at various stages of language management process: “the interest ofa social group may be limited to one or several stages of the management process only. Politicians may raise certain language problems in the discussion ofevaluation of language during the process of organized management. It is in theinterest of such politicians to assert their participation in order to attract the attention of the voting public. However, the same politicians may be completely indifferent in regard to selecting proper adjustment or implementation procedures […]”
(Jernudd & Neustupný 1987: 78).
Zhao and Baldauf also applied the classical LPP approach and proposed a systematic classification of actors, dividing them into four main categories—​(1) people
with power—​national leaders, officials; (2) people with expertise—​linguists, applied
linguists, scientists from other fields, involved in LPP, for instance, in terminological committees; (3) people with influence (writers, celebrities, scholars (non-​linguists), priests, civil rights lawyers, artists, ad hoc group lobbyists); (4) people
with interest—​ordinary citizens at grass-​root levels (see for details Zhao 2011: 910).
The authors also state that actors can play productive or receptive roles in language
planning. This classification should be critically reconsidered, since people withpower often have influence on and interest in the process of language development
etc.; therefore, what the authors present as discrete categories largely overlap.
Moreover, the same person can belong to multiple groups; for instance, a scientist
can also be a public figure, or an applied linguist can be a writer at the same time;they even form coalitions or networks of actors. Nevertheless, this classification is
helpful in putting accent on and prioritizing certain groups of actors.
Zhao and Baldauf also established the “I-​5” model of the process of realizing
language planning goals which includes initiation, involvement, influence, intervention and implementation (see for details: Zhao 2011: 911–​912; Zhao & Baldauf
2012: 7–​9). Different actors play key roles in different stages of this process. Continuing the development of this theory, Zhao and Baldauf describe actors’ roles indiverse spheres of language planning, namely—​status and corpus, language-​in-​education and prestige planning. The actor-​centered approach is broadly appliedin the domain of language-​in-​education scholarship. For instance, Brown (2010)

Key actors in the organized LM of Ukraine

181

defines schoolteachers as language policy actors while Johnson and Johnson introduce the notion of “language policy arbiters” defined as “individuals who havea disproportionate amount of impact on language policies” (in their case study,
school administrators play this role) (Johnson & Johnson 2014: 222). Finally, Zhao
and Baldauf propose an actor-​stage model, in which the classification of actors
and implementation stages are combined (Zhao & Baldauf 2012: 10). This modelis based on an empiric study of the Chinese script reform and has since been usedby McEntee-​Atalianis (2016) in a study of language policies within the depiction of
the United Nations. In another publication, Zhao describes the conflicts between
groups of actors, analyzing the complex nature of relations within language management agencies. As he concludes, conflicts occur more often within the samelanguage management institutions than between representatives of different
groups (Zhao 2011: 917). Moreover, he considers power relations and interests tobe the root cause for the appearance of such internal conflicts: “One major reason
is that LPP is an interest-​bonding enterprise and the members or representatives
involved with the decision-​making are invariably vested with various forms ofregional and economic interest. In addition, there are also individual reasons,influenced by personal inclination or linguistic ideology” (ibid).
Taking into account the connection between sociolinguistics and political science, Schmidt underlines the key role of actors in language policy formation andtransformation. He states that language policies become significant at the political stage, when “political actors believe that something important is at stake
regarding the status and/​or use of languages in their society, and that these stakes
call for intervention by the state” (Schmidt 2009: 97). As he claims, without actors’
intentions and activities, language policies would not draw public attention. Moreover, Peled (2015: 18) underlines that “national governments, community NGOs,
global corporations and other political actors are all agents that are capable ofrealizing political and linguistic transformations.” As he concludes, “human agency
certainly plays a crucial part in the shaping of that interface, even if it is incapableof achieving complete control” (ibid).
In contemporary political theory, language policies are viewed as a partof public policy and are often undermined in the frame of comparative politics(see Lamoreux 2011; Lo Bianco 2000). For this research, Foucault’s notion of
governmentality is also essential, as Pennycook asserts, it drives language policy
research from its classical normative top-​down perspective into an analysis of
discourses and macro-​levels (Pennycook 2005: 65). This notion allows transferringfrom a single actor’s perspective to an analysis of a variety of actors: “In so doing,
it moves us away from a focus on the state as an intentional actor that seeks toimpose its will on the people, and instead draws our attention to much more localized and often contradictory operations of power” (ibid).
In addition, McEntee-​Atalianis (2016: 213) points out those actors should be as
assigned to dynamic categories. She underlines that it is especially applicable inthe domain of language policies and planning: “Moreover, LPP itself is acknowledged as dynamic and negotiable in time and space; its meaning is not seated ‘in’

182

Nadiya Kiss

one text or ‘in’ the reader of the policy document or language user but emerges
via the actions and discourses of multiple agents, often in transaction with one
another” (Ibid). Furthermore, Spolsky’s theory of language management shifts thefocus from a top-​down perspective by emphasizing the grass-​root initiatives that
also could stimulate changes in state management. In his work Language Management (2011), Spolsky dedicated a whole chapter to analyzing language activist
movements and their influence on language policies. Therefore, in present LPP
theory, both top-​down decision makers and bottom-​up activists, are recognizedas significant participants, responsible for language policies’ formation and the
depiction of the language situation. On the other hand, the actor-​centric approach
towards analyzing language policies has its pros and cons, especially in describing
the comparative perspectives of different countries. For instance, advocates of
the historical institutionalism approach criticize sociolinguists for proceeding“without analyzing specific political actors such as the state and its institutions
or, for example, political parties as institutional intermediaries between the stateand society” (Sonntag & Cardinal 2015: 12). Therefore, it is crucial for researchers
to take into account all possible actors, which influence language policy decisions,
their interactions, possible cooperation or confrontation, networks, and coalitions.
Moormann-​
Kimáková (2016) herself underlines the simplification of actor-​
focused analysis in many publications, describing language-​related conflicts interms “group vocabularies” of majorities and minorities. Moormann-​Kimáková
explains the complex nature of institutions including government, media, minority
organizations and international NGOs, which may affect language policies. Finally,
Moormann-​Kimáková introduces her own typology of language-​related conflictparticipants, providing criteria such as territorial concentration, group age, mutual
intelligibility, status and origin. Based upon the last criteria, she differentiates
between minorities created by marginalization, border-​minorities, minorities
caused by immigration, and minorities caused by the change of identification
border (for details see Moormann-​Kimáková 2016: 72–​77). In my research, I take
into account these critical considerations, as they are crucial for the Ukrainian case.
In the frame of critical discourse studies that are regarded as one of the foremost
methodological trends for investigating language policies, the role of an actor-​centric analysis is also emphasized. For instance, Wodak and Meyer (2016: 11) draw attention to the behavior of actors who mostly obey their societies’ discursive rules.
As other researchers point out, however, “there exist certain degrees of freedom
for such actors, allowing them to act strategically and to also change power relations.” In this research, I will also explicate the models of lobbying actors’ interests
as represented in the media. I will try to find answers to questions such as: how
the media highlighted the role of actors in the field of language policies and how
their interests are interpreted via medial means. Savski (2016: 51) argues further that the portrayal of present-​day language policy practices is a challenging
task for scholars because they should consider the variety of “actors involved inlanguage policy, the different spaces policies are created and interpreted in, andthe potential for actors in such spaces to gain agency or to establish hegemony.”

Key actors in the organized LM of Ukraine

183

From a comparative perspective, my research interest is grounded in finding links
between actors’ models of language policy in different post-​Soviet countries, theirsimilarities as well as their peculiarities.

4 L
 anguage management in contemporary Ukraine
As a post-​Soviet country, Ukraine is marked by widespread Ukrainian-​Russian
bilingualism. As the most recent sociological data collected in the Razumkov
Center survey in March 2017 shows, 68% of Ukrainians consider Ukrainian as theirmother tongue and 14% of respondents consider Russian as their native language,
while 17% responded that they speak both Ukrainian and Russian equally with
0.7% reporting another language (Razumkov Center 2017: 6). At the same time,
92% of the respondents identify as Ukrainians, 6% as Russians and 1.5% as othernationalities (ibid). In 2013–​2019, many discursive events occurred which impacted
Ukrainian language policies. First of all, in the wake of the Euromaidan protests(2013–​
2014), researchers, as evidenced by the results of sociological surveys,
perceived the unilateral annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation (2014)
and the ongoing Russian-​Ukrainian war in Donbas an identity shift in Ukrainiansociety. As Volodymyr Kulyk points out:
One of the most noteworthy consequences of the recent events in Ukraine is a dramaticchange in Ukrainian national identity. In various media one can regularly encounter
assertions of individuals’ increased self-​identification as Ukrainian, greater pride inbeing a citizen of the Ukrainian state, stronger attachment to symbols of nationhood,enhanced solidarity with compatriots, increased readiness to defend Ukraine or workfor Ukraine, and increased confidence in the people’s power to change the country forthe better. (Kulyk 2016: 588)

This shift is also reflected in language use, language attitudes and, consequently, inthe language policies enacted by state authorities.
Researchers explicate the essence of bilingualism in Ukraine, as well as the risksof language bipolarity:
While bilingualism is not a negative phenomenon in stable societies, the situationis quite different in Ukraine. On the one hand, after gaining independence in 1991,
patriotic forces considered the revival and spread of the Ukrainian language to be an
uncompromising task. On the other hand, the political forces in the regions where theRussian language prevails incite the population to resist the assimilation of languages
under the slogan of the Russian language protection. (Matviyishyn & Michalski
2017: 189)

Kulyk explains the asymmetrical nature of the contemporary language situationin Ukraine, grounded on the consideration that many ethnic Ukrainians speak
Russian, but simultaneously “fully support Ukraine’s independence from Russia”(Kulyk 2017: 310). Therefore, language attitudes in contemporary Ukraine are more
influenced by ideologies than by a sense of ethnic belonging. This factor also had

184

Nadiya Kissa significant impact on the behavior of political elites in the sphere of language
management.

4.1 Cancelation of the previous language law: Key actors
In his blog on the Radio Liberty website, Marusyk (2017) defines the key players
in the language management process, namely: the Constitutional Court, the President, the Cabinet of Ministers, the Ministry of Culture, local councils, and civil-​
military administrations. Criticizing most of the actors for their ignorance or slow
development of mechanisms and decision-​making processes, Marusyk concludes
that Ukrainian language policies are progressing thanks to bottom-​up, not top-​
down initiatives. In this period, we can see that new actors appear on the language
policies’ stage during the military conflict. For instance, Marusyk alludes to civil-​
military administrations in Donbas (local government units, assigned by central
authorities in Kyiv) as examples of different behavior aimed at influencing thelanguage attitudes of the population in these regions. While the head of the Donetsk Regional Civil-​Military Administration in territories controlled by the Ukrainian government communicates in Ukrainian, the head of the Luhansk unit uses
Russian in communications with public servants (ibid).
In this chapter, I analyze the activities of these actors to estimate what interests
are expressed in their undertakings. In February 2014, the Supreme Council of
Ukraine canceled the previous language law On the principles of the state language
policy that was adopted during Yanukovych’s regime in 2012. The document, frequently called the “Kivalov-​Kolesnichenko law” in reference to its authors, promoted the usage of Russian in all spheres of public life and proclaimed Russianas the regional language in many parts of Ukraine. The law’s adoption in Parliament was heavily contested by Ukrainian-​speakers supporters as well as due
to numerous procedure violations (for details, see Moser 2014). Hence, Oleksandr
Turchynov, interim-​President after Yanukovych fled the country, refused to authorize canceling of the language law, explaining that at first a new law should be
developed. Azhniuk (2017: 372) found that the “Temporary Special Commission
for drafting a new language act was set up by the Parliament on 1 March 2014 todraft a new law instead.” Petro Poroshenko similarly postponed language issues
after a majority of votes in the first round of voting elected him as President in
May 2014. Representatives of the East-​South regions of Ukraine, where Russian is
widely spoken, expressed the idea of the All-​Ukrainian referendum concerning thestatus of Russian. They suggested the idea could be put into action, “in view of theescalation of the military conflict in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, however,
the idea found no response on either central or local levels” (Azhniuk 2017: 371).
Therefore, state authorities were interested in putting the language issues aside
and thus distracting the public from questions that could further polarize society
in light of the ongoing military conflict.
However, certain politico-​social groups were dissatisfied with these language
policy developments. In July 2014, a group of national deputies applied to theKey actors in the organized LM of Ukraine

185

Constitutional Court to review the constitutionality of the above-​mentioned law.
In February 2018, after numerous postponements, protests by the right-​wing party
Svoboda and language activists, and three and a half years of deliberation, the Constitutional Court found the law to be “unconstitutional due to the violation of
the personal voting procedure and a long consideration of the law in the Parliament” (Portal movnoji polityky 2018). The Court’s final decision was made not justbecause of public pressure, but also due to the human factor, namely a personnel
change. Two members of the Court retired, and before new judges assumed theiroffices, the majority voted to cancel the law. Besides, one of the judges actively
cooperated with civil society from the very beginning to promote the annulmentof the law.2
The Constitutional Court, however, is not a singular body and is composed ofthree authorities—​the President, the Parliament, and the Congress of Judges (ibid2018). These three actors delegate an equal number of representatives to the Constitutional Court. Therefore, despite the purported separation of powers between
the legislative, executive and judicial branches in the Ukrainian Constitution, we
can see groups of interests within the Court. In this regard, should the Court beconsidered an independent actor in language policies or as a representative of different groups of interests?
Thus, the previous language law was declared as unconstitutional; however, a
new law had still not been adopted due to several factors, such as “the absence of apolitical will,”3 and the proximity of parliament elections—​politicians do not want
to lose the electorate who do not support the law. Ihor Slidenko, a member of theConstitutional Court commented on these circumstances in an interview. In his
opinion, the situation should encourage politicians to make a decision:Зараз ми маємо справу з правовою лакуною (прогалиною), коли суспільні
відносини на законодавчому рівні не регулюються нічим, а лише нормами
Конституції […]. Ця ситуація повинна змусити народних депутатів
пришвидшити свою роботу в плані підготовки нового закону, який бивідповідав Конституції –​і з точки зору його ухвалення, тобто без порушення
процедури, і з точки зору змісту. (Portal movnoji polityky 2018)[Now we are dealing with a legal gap, when social relations at the legislative level are
not regulated by anything, but only by the norms of the Constitution […]. This situation should force the deputies to speed up their work in terms of preparing a newlaw that would conform to the Constitution—​in terms of its adoption (without any
procedural irregularities), and in terms of its content.] (Translation from the original
Ukrainian texts here and below are mine.)2
3Interview with Taras Marusyk, ex-​Deputy Chairman of the Coordination Council
on the Application of the Ukrainian Language in All Spheres of Public Life under
the Ministry of Culture of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine, June 2018.
Interview with Zakhar Fedorak.

186

Nadiya Kiss

4.2 D evelopment of the new language law: Key actors
Meanwhile, agents of diverse political parties and language activists have drafted
new potential language laws. One of the working groups responsible for its development, led by renowned lawyer and diplomat Volodymyr Vasylenko, had beenassembled under the Ministry of Culture between September and December 2016.
In January 2017, three draft laws were put on the Parliamentary agenda, which
elicited a considerable discussion in the media. The development of the three draft
laws was connected to the competitiveness between opposing political parties.
For instance, one of the members of the party Blok Petra Poroshenka visited theworking group meetings under the Ministry of Culture, “behaving provocatively”
and later presented its own draft law to the Parliament.4 The hotly debated draft
law No. 5670, dubbed so by the media as a civic draft law due to the veracity of its
proponents and its support from different political parties, was taken as a foundational text for a new language law. The draft law titled On ensuring the functioning of the Ukrainian language as a state language was eventually accepted for
the Parliamentary agenda with minor amendments. To block the Parliamentary
adoption of the law, national deputies proposed around 2,000 amendments, which
experts noted as an indication of dissention and absence of consensus concerning
language issues in the Parliament. Nevertheless, after two years of considerationand particular amendments (for instance, the institution of Language Inspectorate
was canceled), the law was adopted on 25 April 2019.
This occurred in a moment of transition in Ukraine, since Volodymyr Zelenskyi
had been elected the next President of Ukraine on 21 April, gaining his official
duties a month later on 20 May. In Zelenskyi’s presidential campaign, language issues were seldom mentioned in his political rhetoric. For instance, in his pre-​election program, Zelenskyi only once referred to language issues without defining his
position and using generic human rights rhetoricТреба міняти країну і змінюватися самим. Треба брати відповідальність насебе й показувати приклад майбутнім поколінням. Треба єднатися усім, хтонезалежно від статі, мови, віри, національності просто ЛЮБИТЬ УКРАЇНУ!
(ZeKomanda 2019)[We must change the country and change ourselves. We must take responsibility
and show the example for future generations. It is necessary to unite all those who,
regardless of gender, language, religion, nationality simply LOVE UKRAINE!]

In addition, his campaign made strategic general statements concerning different
fields of social life, in such a way as to embrace a larger audience.

4

Interview with Oksana Zabolotna, head of Parliament Secretariat, former coordinator of Working group for development of language draft law under the Ministryof Culture, Kyiv, Ukraine, January 2018.

Key actors in the organized LM of Ukraine

187

Zelenskyi’s main opponent, former President Petro Poroshenko appealed tosupport the state status of Ukrainian and its further support and promotion in his
pre-​election campaign. For instance, in a September 2018 speech addressed to Parliament, Poroshenko pointed out that,Утверджуємо українську мову –​складову сили та успіху нашого народу.
І надалі будемо вживати дієвих заходів для зміцнення державного статусу
української мови, посилення і поширення її в усіх сферах публічного життя.
(Ukrajinska Pravda 2018)[We support the Ukrainian language—​a component of the strength and success of ourpeople. We will continue to take effective measures to strengthen the official status of
the Ukrainian language, empower and spread it in all spheres of public life.]

Similar messages were repeated in his political program:Ми захищаємо свою мову, вкладаємо кошти у підтримку української культури.
[…] Продовжимо політику підтримки української мови як єдиної державної.
[…] Розширимо підтримку культурних проектів –​кіно, музики, книги таінших напрямів. (Livyj bereh 2019)[We are protecting our language; we are investing in support of the Ukrainian culture. […] We will continue the policy of support for Ukrainian as the only statelanguage. […] We will widen support for cultural projects—​films, music, books andother directions.]

Crucially, during Poroshenko’s presidency, cultural management institutions suchas the Ukrainian Cultural Foundation and the Ukrainian Book Institute were established and developed. One of the notable functions of these institutions is theirfinancial support of Ukrainian cultural productions and, consequently, Ukrainian
language promotion. Moreover, one of Poroshenko’s election slogans was “Army,
Language, Faith,” while in his final campaign phase, this slogan was more subdued
and general, stating merely “Think!” The parliamentary adoption of the law wasaccompanied by a mass gathering of language activists and the law’s supporters,
near the Parliament building (see Picture 1). The slogans on the placards reflect
the link between language issues and the current military conflict: “Vote for
language law! Protect language—​vote for law! Language is our weapon! Language
is our safety!” After the adoption in Parliament by 278 votes out of 348, Petro
Poroshenko signed the law in one of the last decisions of his presidency. There
were attempts by national deputies and representatives of Oppositional Block toprevent the Parliamentary speaker from signing the document, but they were
rejected by Parliament.

188

Nadiya Kiss

Picture 1: Supporters of Ukrainization close to Parliament building, April 2019.
Source: https://​www.radiosvoboda.org/​a/​istorychne-​rishennya-​zakon-​pro-​movu/​29902793.html

The main idea of the law is the promotion of the state language in different
spheres of public life by creating language management institutions like the State
Language Department, providing free state courses of Ukrainian and introducing alanguage requirement for citizenship or government employment (public servants,
national deputies, judges etc.). Newly-​elected President Volodymyr Zelenskyi, who
in his public speeches switched between Ukrainian and Russian (during the election campaign and after taking the office), criticized the new language law, stating“the state should assist in the development of the Ukrainian language by creating
stimuli and positive examples, not by prohibitions and punishments, by complicating of bureaucratic procedures, by increasing the number of officials instead ofshortening them” (official Facebook page of Volodymyr Zelenskyi, post from April
25, 2019). He also emphasized that the law was passed in a transitional period andthat he will analyze it in detail during his presidency.
International actors were also involved in discussing the new Ukrainian language
law. On May 17, 2019, the Russian Federation delegation asked the United Nations
Security Council to convene a separate meeting to discuss the new language legislation, but the UN refused, as the request was rejected by the USA and certain EU
member states (UNIAN 2019). Nevertheless, the Russian delegation made a second
request, after which the UN scheduled a meeting concerning the law on July 16, 2019
(Ukrinform 2019); ironically, on the same day the language law was to enter into aforce. Meanwhile, a group of fifty-​one national deputies, led again by an Oppositional
Block representative, applied to the Constitutional Court with a request to recognize
the language law as unconstitutional. In this application, they stated that the law

Key actors in the organized LM of Ukraine

189

creates “an atmosphere of intolerance towards the historic linguistic diversity thatis characteristic of the united and multinational people of Ukraine,” and that “theprocedure for the use of languages of national minorities in Ukraine is not regulated” (Radio Svoboda 2019). Therefore, we could see how opposing interest groupuse the identical strategies, namely in their applications to the Constitutional Court
and protests of the language legislation. In her description of the current Ukrainiansituation, Bilaniuk, concludes that two contrary competitive language ideologies
dominate the country: “Language matters” and “Language does not matter” (see fordetails: Bilaniuk 2016). However, as she points out, discursive practices show thateventually language always matter (for some societal groups Ukrainian, for someRussian). As for the future, we can expect another shift in language policies towards
regionalization with the Zelenskyi presidency giving more rights to Russian-​speakers and national minorities, while shortening state programs for the supportand development of the Ukrainian language. Another reason to expect such an outcome is that in his human resource policies, Zelenskyi has shown tight connections
with ex-​members Party of Regions—​a political organization that, among other activities, promoted a widening of Russian language usage during the Yanukovych regime.
Yet it is important to underline that a broad coalition of actors formed in favor of
the new language law. As Zakhar Fedorak of the Directorate of the State Language
Policy under the Ministry of Culture comments: “Authors of the draft law on the statelanguage created a strong background for its implementation thanks to a consolidation of efforts; many deputies supported this draft law as well.”5 Table 1 illustrates thedifferent groups of actors at diverse steps of language policy development.
Table 1: Groups of actors at different stages of the development of the new draft law
on language.
Stage

PeriodActors

Initiation

March 2014

National deputies, politicians

Involvement

September –​December 2016 Language activists, lawyers, linguists,
the Ministry of Culture

Influence

January 2017 –​ongoing

Bloggers, journalists, writers,
linguists, the Constitutional Court,
language activists

Intervention

January 2017 –​ongoing

Politicians, right-​wing language
activists

Implementation

Since July 16, 2019

Ministries, public servants, teachers,
language management institutions

5

Interview with Zakhar Fedorak, expert of Directorate of State Language Policy under
Ministry of Culture Kyiv, Ukraine, June 2018.

190

Nadiya Kiss

4.3 Conflicts between the actors during the new language law
development
At the same time, several conflicts appeared between actors at different stages oflanguage policy development. First of all, at the initiation stage, a dispute erupted
between politicians concerning the general conception of a new language law
in an argument about the structure of the law. Finally, national deputy Oksana
Syrojid, a representative of the Samopomich party, put forward the winning idea tocreate two separate draft laws—​one on the state language, and another concerning
the languages of national minorities.6 The draft law on minorities no. 6348 was also
registered in the Parliament under the title On amendments to some laws of Ukraine
on provision of development and use of languages of national minorities in Ukraine,
but was not discussed in the media.
In addition, a conflict within a group of language activists appeared during theinfluence and intervention stages. As Zhao and Baldauf point out: “Intervention
is the traditional term for the mediation of LPP problems, though intervention
also may occur during implementation—​with strongly negative results, since such
involvement may lead to delay or discontinuation of the implementation. Intervention in this latter sense can occur at any stage in the continuum” (Zhao &Baldauf 2012: 8). The draft law on the state language had been promoted in the
media as early as January 2017 by its developers and intelligentsia with a sharedlinguistic ideology of widening the sphere of state language usage. Representatives of the right-​wing political party Svoboda, for instance, the national deputy
and noted linguist, Iryna Farion, criticized the law for being too weak and liberal in its promotion of the state language, calling it a half-​law (Farion 2018). In
addition, Larysa Nitsoj, a child writer, also famous for her provocative behavior
and blogs concerning language issues, criticized the draft law since “the status of
the Ukrainian language, as a state language, cannot narrow the linguistic rights
and needs of minorities” (Nitsoi 2017). These views were supported by right-​wing
activists, which provoked a split within the language activist community. As aresult, experts have since accentuated the “radicalization of language issues.”7 As
Zhao underlines, a conflict between actors can have positive consequences whencompromises are found; at the same time, “it obviously creates a negative image ofthe actors and causes confusion among the public, which increases the difficulty of
implementing LPP in practice” (Zhao 2011: 918).
In contemporary Ukraine, these conflicts draw the public’s attention to language
issues, but simultaneously stir up negative connotations of language policies insociety and postpone decision-​making procedures. As Oksana Zabolotna sums
up: “Civil society does much more than authorities. […] Civil society supports the

67Interview with Oksana Zabolotna.
Interview with Anastasiia Rozlutska, head of NGO Free Courses of Ukrainian, Kyiv,
Ukraine, June 2018.

Key actors in the organized LM of Ukraine

191

language draft on the state language. A part of civil society criticizes this draft law[and their] actions are provocative.”8 Another expert, Jaryna Chornohuz, explains
the reasons for such behavior: “For radical right-​wing political parties it is profitable to keep language issues unsolved because in that case they can promise theirelectorate to solve them, for this reason they are blocking the adoption of the new
language law.”9 At the same time, pro-​Russian and Russian interest groups do notwant an adoption of the new law on the state language,10 since it will endorse theusage of Ukrainian.

4.4 I mplementation stage in language management ofcontemporary Ukraine
According to Zhao and Baldauf’s classification, language policy development incontemporary Ukraine mostly fail to reach the implementation stage. Moreover,Kimura proposes to add another phase to the cyclical model of language management—​namely the post-​implementation stage (Kimura 2014: 255). On the one
hand, discourses concerning language in Ukraine are constructed and permanently
supported by a vivid presence of the topic in the media. On the other hand, notmany systemic changes are made in the process of language policy transformation.
Nevertheless, to fill thе legal vacuum in the language sphere, ex-​president
Petro Poroshenko signed Decree No. 155/​2018 in May 2018 On urgent measures
to strengthen the state status of the Ukrainian language and promote the creationof a united cultural space of Ukraine. The decree foresees the development of atarget state program for supporting the Ukrainian language. In this document,
Poroshenko mentioned measures that echo the draft language law, for instance,a “certificate exam on the state language” (Prezydent Ukrajiny 2018). However,language policies experts regarded the decree as merely declarative and disappointing (Marusyk 2018).
One more document that appeared to fill a legal vacuum in the language domain
is the Strategy of popularization of the state language till 2030 “Strong language —​strong state” published by the Directorate of the State Language Policy under the
Ministry of Culture. Kateryna Prytula, an expert at the Directorate explains thisconcept: “The Ukrainian language is the language of the future, it is a successful
language, it is a marker of a valuable job, and it is not only the reason for healthy
patriotism and identity-​formation (our own, not remained from the former Soviet
Union), but also a language for communication.”11 From a legal point of view,

8 Interview with Oksana Zabolotna.
9 Interview with Jaryna Chornohuz, the head of Switch to Ukrainian social movement.
10 Interview with Oksana Zabolotna.
11 Interview with Kateryna Prytula, expert of Directorate of State Language Policy
under the Ministry of Culture of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine, June 2018.

192

Nadiya Kiss

neither the decree nor the national strategy function as binding documents andtherefore cannot introduce systemic transformations into language policies.
The prognoses of language policy researchers are connected to the developmentof the political situation in the country. As Azhniuk (2017: 382) underscores:
The future of the language legislation greatly depends on the development of the military conflict in Eastern Ukraine. If the territories occupied by pro-​Russian separatists
remain under Kyiv’s control, the regional status of the Russian language in Ukrainian
legislation will most likely be preserved. If these territories are liberated from theseparatists, the only language with a legal status in the country will be Ukrainian.

At the same time, despite the negative expectations of the experts, the implementation of the law On ensuring the functioning of the Ukrainian language asa state language has started during Zelenskyi’s presidency. For instance, newly
established language management institutions, such as the National commission
on standards of the state language and Ombudsman on the protection of the statelanguage begin to function. However, the implementation of the law, the conflicts
between actors that appeared during this stage of language management, needs
further exploration and is beyond the research scope of this chapter.

4.5 A
 doption of the language legislation in the sphere of media
and education: Key actors
On the other hand, the legislative initiatives in the sphere of mass-​
media
Ukrainization were successful both in their adoption and in implementation.
For instance, Ukrainian law On amendments to the Law of Ukraine ‘On televisionand radio broadcasting’ (regarding the proportion of songs in the state language inmusical radio programs) was adopted in November 2016. According to the document, the broadcast of Ukrainian songs should be no less than 25% (with further growing) of the overall number of songs played on the radio, concerning thetotal time of transmission. The Ukrainian law On amendments to laws of Ukraine
regarding the language of audio-​visual (electronic) mass media was adopted in May
2017 and supported by President Petro Poroshenko. It demands that the national
TV channels use the state language in 75% of broadcasted programs (60% in local
TV channels). Both documents were broadly discussed in the media (with unofficial titles—​laws on radio-​and TV-​quotas) concerning the details of their implementation and their influence on the Ukrainian media market.
Changes in language regulations within education also provoked a media
outcry with the involvement of not only internal, but also external actors as well.
In particular, language article no. 7 in the new law On education adopted in September 2017 requires an increased use of the state language in education at different levels—​from primary schools to universities. The mechanisms of this law
have started to be implemented in 2020, so the time has been allotted to prepare thereforms accordingly. The proposal is closely tied to the situation in the Zakarpattia
region, which is densely populated by Romanian and Hungarian minorities. As theKey actors in the organized LM of Ukraine

193

results of the External Independent Evaluation on university admission exams in2016 showed, more than ¼ of pupils in the Zakarpattia region failed the Ukrainian
language test (Osvitnij portal Zakarpattia 2016). Therefore, from the point of viewof the Ministry of Education, new regulations should promote social integrationand enable access to higher education in Ukraine for national minorities. However,external observers perceived it as a threat to the linguistic rights of national minorities. On the Radio Liberty website, numerous articles described this discursive
event as Hungarian, Romanian, Polish, Bulgarian, Greek, Moldovan and RussianFederation officials actively participated in the discussion at the diplomatic level,
and criticized the law for restricting the rights of minorities (Radio Svoboda 2017b).
Official Hungarian representatives sent complaints to the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, European Union and United Nations, transferring
the discussion of domestic policies to the international level (Radio Svoboda 2017a).
In turn, in October 2017, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
passed a resolution, in which, on the one hand, criticized Ukrainian authorities
for adopting the education law without previously consulting with the representatives of national minorities, and on the other hand, reiterated Ukraine’s rightto support and develop its own state language, taking into account the linguistic
rights of minorities. Minister of Education Lilia Hrynevych went on to promise
to clarify the phrasing in the language article (Radio Svoboda 2017b). Furthermore, in December 2017, the Venice Commission published an advisory opinion,
in which the Commission members pointed out that the education law should beflexible enough to combine the promotion of the state language while preserving
the languages of national minorities. The final recommendations include, in particular, “ensuring a sufficient proportion of education in minority languages at the
primary and secondary levels, in addition to the teaching of the state language; toimprove the quality of teaching of the state language; to amend the relevant transitional provisions of the Education Law to provide more time for a gradual reform,[…]; to ensure that the implementation of the Law does not endanger the preservation of the minorities’ cultural heritage and the continuity of minority language
education in traditional schools.”12
Table 2 illustrates which actors were involved in the development of thelanguage article at different stages. In this case, it is interesting to note that theintervention stage transpired on two occasions—​first in June 2017 when language
activists initiated a meeting with the Minister of Education to discuss thelanguage article. After this meeting, eight of ten proposals submitted by thelanguage activists were accepted by the Ministry of Education and introduced into
the law. These amendments were mostly dedicated to strengthening the positionof the state language in the education system. Later on, in September 2017, when
the law was passed by Parliament, which provoked a discussion in media, the12 Available at: http://​www.ven​ice.coe.int/​webfo​rms/​docume​nts/​defa​ult.aspx?pdff​i le=​CDL-​AD(2017)030-​e.

194

Nadiya Kiss

next phase of intervention began, led by diplomats and international organizations concerned about the suppression of the linguistic rights of minorities. These
interventions had a positive effect, since they gave rise to a broader dialogue thatinvolved the representatives of national minorities. At the same time, they revealed tensions between different social groups—​those who encourage the promotion of the state language and those who are occupied with the preservation ofminorities’ rights. In case of the second group, the role of international actors was
crucial. The discussion revolving around the possible discrimination on linguistic
grounds was also fueled heated by external agents, not just by the internal minorities themselves. As Taras Marusyk suggests, those representatives of Ukrainianpolitical parties who stoked the debate have tight cultural and financial relations
with external actors, especially in Hungary.13
Table 2: Groups of actors at different stages of language article development in the
new educational law.
Stage

PeriodActors

Initiation

April 2015

National deputies, politicians

Involvement

April 2015 –​September 2017

The Ministry of Education

Influence

September 2017 –​ongoing

Representatives of national
minorities, journalists

Intervention

June 2017
September 2017 –​ongoing

Language activists
Diplomats, internationalorganizations

Implementation

Has started in 2020

The Ministry of Education, school
administrators, local authorities,
teachers, language activists

Recent developments show that a compromise between representatives ofnational minorities and the Ministry of Education and Science has been struck.
In 2019, the Ministry decided to differentiate between schoolchildren who camefrom national minorities’ families and native speakers in their Ukrainian language
assessments. However, this differentiation will only be in effect during the next
two years (The Babel 2019). After-​school Ukrainian language tests are extremely
important for admission to universities, and the Ministry needs to minimize particular social barriers for representatives of national minorities.
Based on an analysis of Russian-​speaking blogs in Ukraine, Maksimovtsova(2017: 10) defines two main rhetorical strategies—​a rhetoric of loss and rhetoric ofentitlement. The rhetoric of loss is often used by opposing camps:
13 Interview with Taras Marusyk.

Key actors in the organized LM of Ukraine

195

The frequent use of this argumentation pattern indicates that many Ukrainians feelthat the position of the state language is ‘threatened’ and that the state needs tofocus on preserving the unique cultural identity and territorial integrity of Ukraine.
Like those social actors who argue that Ukrainian-​speakers’ rights are infringed
in Ukraine, the second group of claim-​makers admits exactly the opposite—​total
Ukrainization of the public space is the violation of the rights of Russian speakers.
(Maksimovtsova 2017: 17)

This statement seems to be relevant for debates on the language article in a new
education law as well, since both sides of the conflict use rhetorical strategies ofloss and threat.

4.6 L anguage management in contemporary Ukraine: Key actors
The discursive events in Ukraine’s organized language management have revealed that actors form coalitions to represent their interests and that conflicts
appear between different actors or even within groups, which seem homogenous
at first glance. Returning to Cooper’s scheme of language planning analysis, we
can see the combination of top-​down and bottom-​up initiatives in Ukraine’s contemporary language policies. There is a continuous dialogue between the stateand civil society concerning language policies. Different state institutions, such as
the Constitutional Court, the Ministry of Culture, the Ministry of Education, theParliament, and the President influence the transformation of different language
policies. At the same time, language activists, represented by a number of organizations and movements, also actively participate in the decision-​making processes.
The media continuously highlight language policies, therefore journalists, writers,
and bloggers should also be considered as actors in language policy development.
All of these interrelations can be seen in Table 3.

196

Nadiya Kiss

Table 3: Language management in Ukraine (2013–​2020) according to Cooper’s scheme.
What actors

Representatives of the state institutions
International organizations
Media organizations
Representatives of national minorities
Cultural leaders
Research institutions
Language activists
Teachers

To influence what
behaviors

To encourage the learning of the Ukrainian language as the statelanguage and to facilitate its use in different domains of public
life (e.g., education, mass-​media); to preserve the linguistic rights
of national minorities

Of which people

Average citizens, journalists, pupils, students, minority
representatives

For what ends

Social integration of minorities, access to higher educationin Ukraine, Ukrainization, decrease of Russian influence ininformation space

Under what
conditions

Russian-​Ukrainian military conflict, economic crisis, migration

By what means

Legislative initiatives, draft laws, language article in law on
education, new laws on language quotas in radio and television,
new law on the state language, language activist movements

Through what
policy decision-​making process

Combination of the top-​down and bottom-​up models

With what effects

Public debates on language policies, Ukrainization of themedia and education, shift in identities, creation pf language
management institutions

Language management is always tightly linked to the socio-​political situation of a given country. In present-​day Ukraine, the context of reorientations oflanguage policies is the ongoing Russian-​Ukrainian military conflict, its ensuingeconomic crisis, and migration patterns. The general trend in language policies isa Ukrainization of different spheres of public life, in such a way that diminishes
Russian’s influence, especially in the information space. At the same time, the issues of preserving the rights of linguistic minorities are also on the agenda. Not all
initiatives have been implemented, nevertheless, the draft laws also shape public
discourses on language issues in the media.

Key actors in the organized LM of Ukraine

197

5 C
 onclusions
In this chapter, I have analyzed language policies in contemporary Ukraine, applying
Cooper’s (1989) scheme for language planning research, as well the actors-​stage
model developed by Zhao and Baldauf (2012). As the results of the analysis haveshown, these methodological tools reveal the main participants in the language
policy process and shed light on the power relations and interests expressed or
hidden in these circumstances. Different actors cooperate in language policy
formation presenting strategies that are connected with their group belonging,
linguistic ideologies, socio-​political status, economic interests and values. These
characteristics could also provoke conflicts between participants. Looking to the
future, I plan to advance the typology of actors to analyze the complex nature oflanguage policy development.
As the analysis of media and expert interviews revealed, different actors are
involved at the different stages of language policy development in Ukraine. Somestages, for instance intervention, could have positive (amendment of current policies) or negative (blocking the decision-​making process) effects on language policy
development. Contemporary Ukraine is an informative case for the study of different, often contradicting interests of language policy participants. Consequently,
these findings could be applied to an extent to other post-​Soviet contexts. However, the behavior of actors is mostly a compilation of various sociocultural discursive practices, so the socio-​political context should always be considered.

References
Azhniuk, B. (2017) Ukrainian language legislation and the national crisis. In
M. Flier & A. Graziosi (eds) The Battle for Ukrainian: A Comparative Perspective.
Cambridge: Ukrainian Research Institute, Harvard University, 365–​387.
Besters-​Dilger, J. (ed) (2009) Language Policy and Language Situation in Ukraine.
Analysis and Recommendations. Frankfurt on the Main: Peter Lang.
Bilaniuk, L. (2016) Ideologies of language in wartime. In O. Bertelsen (ed) Revolution
and War in Contemporary Ukraine. The Challenge of Change. Stuttgart: Ibidem-​
Verlag, 139–​160.
Bilaniuk, L. (2017) Purism and pluralism: Language use trends in popular culture
in Ukraine since independence. In M. Flier & A. Graziosi (eds) The Battle for
Ukrainian: A Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Ukrainian Research Institute,
Harvard University, 343–​363.
Brown, K. (2010) Teachers as language-​policy actors: Contending with the erasureof lesser-​used languages in schools. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 41 (3),298–​314.
Cooper, R. (1989) Language Planning and Social Change. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

198

Nadiya Kiss

Csernicskó, I. & Ferenc, V. (2016) Transitions in the language policy of Ukraine(1989–​2014). In M. Sloboda, P. Laihonen & A. Zabrodsskaja (eds) Sociolinguistic Transition in Former Eastern Bloc Countries. Two Decades after the Regime
Change. Berlin: Peter Lang, 349–​377.
Dorner, D. (2012) Social actors and the language policy and planning process: A
case study from German-​speaking Lorraine (France). In P. Studer & I. Werlen(eds) Linguistic Diversity in Europe: Current Trends and Discourses. Berlin &Boston: De Gruyter, 157–​175.
Farion I. (2018) Pro movu dlia hibrydiv: “na vymohu” chy “pryjniatnu dlia storin”[About language for hybrids: “on demand” or “acceptable for both sides”]. On
WWW at https://​blogs.pra​vda.com.ua/​auth​ors/​far​ion/​5a8ba6​60df​572/​. Accessed
February 20, 2018.
Hogan-​Brun, G. & Melnyk, S. (2012) Language policy management in the former
Soviet sphere. In B. Spolsky (ed) The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 592–​616.
Hornberger, N. H. (2005) Frameworks and models in Language Policy and Planning. In T. Ricento (ed) An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method.
Oxford: Blackwell, 24–​41.
Jernudd, B. & Neustupný, J. (1987) Language planning: For whom? In L. Laforge(ed) Actes du Colloque international sur l’aménagement linguistique /​Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Language Planning. Québec: Les Presses
de l’Université Laval, 69–​84. On WWW at http://​lan​guag​eman​agem​ent.ff.cuni.
cz/​en/​sys​tem/​files/​docume​nts/​jer​nudd​_​neu​stup​ny_​1​987.pdf. Accessed July23, 2018.
Johnson, D. C. & Johnson, E. J. (2014) Power and agency in language policy appropriation. Language Policy 3, 221–​243.
Kimura, G. C. (2014) Language management as a cyclical process: A case study on
prohibiting Sorbian in the workplace. Slovo a slovesnost 75 (4), 255–​270.
Kulyk, V. (2010) Ideologies of language use in post-​Soviet Ukrainian media. International Journal of Sociology of Language 201, 79–​104.
Kulyk, V. (2016) National identity in Ukraine: Impact of Euromaidan and the war.
Europe–​Asia Studies 68 (4), 588–​608.
Kulyk, V. (2017) Language attitudes in independent Ukraine: Differentiation andevolution. In M. Flier & A. Graziosi (eds) The Battle for Ukrainian: A Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Ukrainian Research Institute, Harvard University,
309–​341.
Lamoureux S. A. (2011) Public policy, language practice and language policy
beyond compulsory education. Cahiers de l’ILOB 3, 123–​140.
Livyj bereh (2019) Peredvyborna programa Petra Porošenka [Pre-​election programof Petro Poroshenko]. On WWW at https://​ukr.lb.ua/​news/​2019/​02/​11/​419445_​
pere​dvib​orna​_​pro​gram​a_​pe​tra.html. Accessed July 4, 2019.

Key actors in the organized LM of Ukraine

199

Lo Bianco, J. (2000) Making languages an object of public policy. Agenda 7 (1), 47–​61.
Maksimovtsova, K. (2017) Language policy in education in contemporary
Ukraine: A continuous discussion of contested national identity. Journal of
Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe 16 (3), 1–​25.
Marusyk, T. (2017) 2017 rik u movnij sferi: pidstavy dlia pozytyvu zbil’šujut’sja[2017 year in language sphere: bases for positive are increasing]. On WWW at
https://​www.radio​svob​oda.org/​a/​28947​735.html. Accessed July 24, 2018.
Marusyk, T. (2018) Novyj movnyj ukaz: rozčaruvannja i deklaracija [New language
decree: disappointment and declaration]. On WWW at https://​www.radio​svob​
oda.org/​a/​29268​590.html. Accessed July 26, 2018.
Masenko, L. (2008) Umovna Ukrajina [Conditional Ukraine]. Kyiv: Tempora.
Matviyishyn, Y. & Michalski, T. (2017) Language differentiation of Ukraine’s population. Journal of Nationalism, Memory & Language Politics 11 (2), 181–​197.
McEntee-​Atalianis, L. J. (2016) A network model of language policy and planning: The United Nations as a case study. Language Problems & Language Planning 40 (2), 187–​217.
Moormann-​
Kimáková, B. (2016) Language-​
Related Conflicts in Multinationaland Multiethnic Settings: Success and Failure of Language Regimes. Wiesbaden: Springer.
Moser, M. (2014) Language Policy and the Discourse on Languages in Ukraine
under President Viktor Yanukovych (25 February 2010 –​28 October 2012). Stuttgart: Ibidem-​Verlag.
Nekvapil, J. (2006) From language planning to language management.
Sociolinguistica 20, 92–​104.
Nekvapil, J. (2016) Language management theory as one approach in language
policy and planning. Current Issues in Language Planning 17 (1), 11–​22.
Nekvapil, J. & Sherman, T. (2015) An introduction: Language management theory
in language policy and planning. International Journal of Sociology of Language
232, 1–​12.
Nitsoj, L. (2017) Ukrajincjam haplyk, jakščo Rada uchvalyt’ zarejestrovani zakony
pro osvitu, movu j nacmenšyny [Ukrainians will not survive if parliament will
adopt registered laws on education, language and national minorities]. On
WWW at http://​politi​cua.com/​polit​ika/​8492-​8492.html. Accessed July 26, 2018.
Osvitnij portal Zakarpattia (2016) Rezul’taty ZNO: Zakarpattja –​sered najhiršych
iz ukrajins’koji, istoriji, matematyky, heohrafiji ta biolohiji [Result of external
independent tests: Zakarpattia region is among the worst concerning results on
Ukrainian language, history, mathematics, geography and biology]. On WWW
at http://​osv​ita.uz.ua/​rezult​aty-​zno-​zaka​rpat​t ya-​sered-​naj​girs​hyh-​iz-​ukray​insk​
oyi-​istor​iyi-​mat​emat​yky-​geo​graf​i yi-​ta-​biolog​iyi/​. Accessed July 24, 2018.

200

Nadiya Kiss

Pavlenko, A. (2011) Language rights versus speakers’ rights: On the applicabilityof Western language rights approaches in Eastern European contexts. Language
Policy 10, 37–​58.
Pavlenko, A. (2013) Multilingualism in post-​Soviet successor states. Language andLinguistics Compass 7 (4), 262–​271.
Peled, Y. (2015) Normative language policy: Interface and interferences. In
T. Ricento, Y. Peled & P. Ives (eds) Language Policy and Political Theory: Building
Bridges, Assessing Breaches. Wiesbaden: Springer, 7–​21.
Pennycook, A. (2005) Postmodernism in language policy. In T. Ricento (ed) An
Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method. Oxford: Blackwell, 60–​76.
Portal movnoji polityky (2018) Movnyj zakon mih buty skasovanyj sudom šče
u 2014 roci –​suddja KSU [Language law could have been cancelled alreadyin 2014]. Interview with Ihor Slidenko. On WWW at http://​langu​age-​pol​icy.
info/​2018/​03/​mov​nyj-​zakon-​mih-​buty-​ska​sova​nyj-​sudom-​sche-​u-​2014-​rotsi-​
sud​dya-​ksu/​. Accessed July 24, 2018.
Prezydent Ukrajiny (2018) Ukaz Prezydenta Ukrajiny No. 156/​2018 “Pro nevidkladni
zahody ščodo zmicnennja deržavnoho statusu ukrajins’koji movy ta spryjannja
stvorennju jedynoho kul’turnoho prostoru Ukrajiny” [Decree of the President of
Ukraine No. 156/​2018 “On urgent measures to strengthen state status of Ukrainian language and to assist creation of united cultural space of Ukraine”]. On
WWW at http://​www.presid​ent.gov.ua/​docume​nts/​1562​018-​24258. Accessed
July 25, 2018.
Radio Svoboda (2017a) Uhorščyna zvernulasja do OBSJE, OON i JES čerez movnu
stattju ukrajins’koho zakonu pro osvitu [Hungary appealed to OBSCE, UN and
EU concerning language article in Ukrainian law on education]. On WWW at
https://​www.radio​svob​oda.org/​a/​news/​28729​757.html. Accessed July 25, 2018.
Radio Svoboda (2017b) U PARJE uchvalyly rezoljuciju ščodo zakonu pro osvitu
v Ukrajini [The PACE adopted resolution regarding law on education in
Ukraine]. On WWW at https://​www.radio​svob​oda.org/​a/​news/​28789​627.html.
Accessed July 25, 2018.
Radio Svoboda (2019) 51 deputat zvernuvsja do KSU ščodo zakonu pro ukrajins’ku
movu [51 national deputies applied to Constitutional Court regarding law on
Ukrainian language]. On WWW at https://​www.radio​svob​oda.org/​a/​news-​ksu-​
zakon-​pro-​movu-​podan​nya/​30012​752.html. Accessed June 21, 2019.
Razumkov Center (2017) Osnovni zasady ta šljachy formuvannja spil’noji
identyčnosti hromadjan Ukrajiny [The basic principles and ways of forming
the common identity of Ukrainian citizens]. On WWW at http://​razum​kov.org.
ua/​ima​ges/​Mate​rial​_​Con​fere​nce/​2017_​04_​1​2_​id​ent/​2017-​Ide​nti-​3.pdf. Accessed
July 24, 2018.

Key actors in the organized LM of Ukraine

201

Savski, K. (2016) State language policy in time and space: Meaning, transformation,
recontextualisation. In E. Barakos & J. W. Unger (eds) Discursive Approaches toLanguage Policy. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 51–​70.
Schmidt, R. (2005) Political theory and language policy. In T. Ricento (ed) An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method. Oxford: Blackwell, 95–​110.
Sonntag, S. K. & Cardinal, L. (2015) State traditions and language regimes: A historical institutionalism approach to language policy. Acta Univ. Sapientiae, European and Regional Studies 8, 5–​21.
Spolsky, B. (2011) Language Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
The Babel (2019) Vypusknykam škil z movamy nacmenšyn na dva roky sprostyly
ZNO z ukrajins’koji movy (2019) [After-​school test on Ukrainian language issimplified for graduates from schools with national minorities for the periodof two years]. On WWW at https://​theba​bel.com.ua/​news/​29428-​vipu​skni​kam-​shkil-​z-​mov​ami-​nac​mens​hin-​na-​dva-​roki-​sprost​ili-​zno-​z-​ukraj​insk​oji-​movi.
Accessed April 26, 2019.
Ukrajinska Pravda (2018) Poslannia Prezydenta Ukrajiny Porošenka do Verkhovnoji
Rady Ukrajiny [Message of the President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko to theSupreme Council of Ukraine]. On WWW at https://​www.pra​vda.com.ua/​artic​
les/​2018/​09/​20/​7192​645/​. Accessed September 20, 2018.
Ukrinfrom (2019) Rosija znovu sklykaje Radbez OON ščodo ukrajins’koho„movnoho“ zakonu [Russia again gathers United Nations Council of Safety
meeting concerning Ukrainian language law]. On WWW at https://​www.ukrinf​
orm.ua/​rub​ric-​polyt​ics/​2731​600-​rosia-​znovu-​skli​kae-​rad​bez-​oon-​sodo-​ukra​
insk​ogo-​movn​ogo-​zak​onu.html. Accessed July 1, 2019.
UNIAN (2019) Rada Bezpeky OON vidmovylasja obhovorjuvaty ukrajins’kyj zakon
pro movu na vymohu Rosiji [United Nations Security Council refused to discuss Ukrainian law on language on Russia’s demand]. On WWW at https://​www.unian.ua/​polit​ics/​10556​508-​rada-​bezp​eki-​oon-​vidmo​vila​sya-​obgovo​ryuv​
ati-​ukra​jins​kiy-​zakon-​pro-​movu-​na-​vim​ogu-​ros​iji.html. Accessed July 1, 2019.
Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (eds) (2016) Methods of Critical Discourse Studies. Los Angeles: Sage.
ZeKomanda (2019) Peredvyborča prohrama kandydata na post Presydenta Ukrajiny
Volodymyra Zelens’koho [Pre-​election program of Volodymyr Zelenskyi, candidate for post of President of Ukraine]. On WWW at https://​prog​ram.ze2​019.
com/​. Accessed July 4, 2019.
Zhao S. (2011) Actors in language planning. In E. Hinkel (ed) Handbook of Research inSecond Language Teaching and Learning. Vol II. New York & London: Routledge,
905–​923.
Zhao, S., & Baldauf, R. B. (2012) Individual agency in language planning: Chinese
script reform as a case study. Language Problems & Language Planning 36 (1),
1–​24.

Solvita Burr (née Pošeiko)

The interaction of nationalist language
ideology and the interests of individual
actors: An unresolved dispute over language
use on Latvian house number signs
Abstract The chapter examines a trilingual house number sign which has repeatedly
been defined by Latvia’s public bodies as a language problem due to its use of foreign
languages in addition to the state language. These metalinguistic actions have caused
two-​year-​long discussions not only on language use on the sign, but also on normative
documents which regulate language use in Latvian public signage. The actors who had
the need/​chance to express their views and attitudes towards the case under consideration can be placed into two interest groups: those with nationalist interests seeking toestablish or maintain monopolistic use of the state language, and those who advocate
for the right of minority groups to use their mother tongue in private (a house being a
private environment). The theoretical framework of Language Management Theory isused to discuss multiple language management cycles at micro, meso and macro levels,
to analyze motives, argumentation and strategies of both sides in the context of language
policy, and in discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the actors in solving language
problems. The main question is: What does the language management process tell us
about the actors’ capacity (power) to deal with a language problem in the linguistic
landscape of Latvia?
Keywords trilingual street name, official signage, linguistic landscape, language
problem, language management, language policy, power and weakness

I I ntroduction
Building number signs are plaques that show partial postal addresses, provide
easier orientation, and facilitate the work of public services (e.g., emergency medical services, fire brigades, police). They are attached to residential, commercial
and administrative buildings. Usually, the street name and a building number are
included on them; additionally, text indicating ownership may be added. In Latvia,
the production and placement of building number signs must comply with city or
county standards that determine their visual design, location and linguistic content. However, building owners or managers are responsible for the cost of producing and placing these signs.
Due to the top-​down management of signs and their strictly standardized formand content, building number signs—​along with road signs, official announcements,

204

Solvita Burr (née Pošeiko)and name signs of government institutions—​are treated as signs of the official
sphere of linguistic landscape (hereinafter the LL) (Gorter 2006; Gorter, Marten& Van Mensel 2012). LL studies show that official signs reflect a state’s ideology
or ideology of autonomous provinces and their language policy more accurately(e.g., Marten 2010; Puzey 2012; Pošeiko 2015b). A change in language use in official
signs is often a result of a change in political power. For instance, at different times,
streets in Latvia have been officially named in German, Russian and Latvian (formore on this, see Balode 2008; Pošeiko 2015b, 2018).
The chapter utilizes Language Management Theory to examine one of the mostcontentious “metalinguistic cases” surrounding a house number sign with a street
name in three languages in Liepāja, one of Latvia’s biggest cities, which, basedon the sign owner’s initiative, was ruled upon by the Constitutional Court of the
Republic of Latvia—​the highest authority at the national level. The process of thiscase is complicated due not only to the use of foreign languages (English and Russian)1 on the official sign, but also because the right of the Russian minority to use
their own language, and the compliance of some Articles of the Official Language
Law (1999) with the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia (1922) and other legal
national and international documents, are issues often subjected to discussion.
Therefore, the resolution of the case involves both the single-​language practiceand the discourse on language use in the Latvian LL.
The aim of the chapter is to analyze the aggregate cycle of multi-​level language
management of the house number sign, focusing on actors’ expressed beliefs,
statements and metalinguistic activities. The chapter’s underlying questions
are thus:
1.	 Who has defined the house number sign with a street name in three languages
as a language problem and what is the legal basis for this judgment? What otherproblems (language problems, language-​related social problems) has it raised?
2.	 What are the actors’ language-​related interests and aims?
3.	 What arguments have been used to accept or deny the trilingual sign and whatstrategies have been used to influence the language management process?
4.	 What does the language management process tell us about actors’ capacity (power)
to deal with a language problem in the LL of Latvia?

In order to examine the language management of the trilingual house-​number
sign, a content analysis of the documents of Constitutional Court Case Nr. 2017-​
01-​01 (Constitutional Court 2017a) that are available in the archives of the Constitutional Court; of online, publicly available information; of the case’s final ruling1

According to the Official Language Law (1999), “The official language in the Republicof Latvia is the Latvian language […]. Any other language used in the Republic of
Latvia, except the Liv language, shall be regarded, within the meaning of this Law,
as a foreign language.”

Nationalist ideology and individual interests

205(Constitutional Court 2017b); and of the case’s closure (Constitutional Court 2017c)
has been carried out.
The chapter consists of seven sections. After the introduction, the second section discusses Language Management Theory in the LL in the context of language
policy in Latvia. The third section briefly describes the ethnolinguistic situation inLiepāja. The most extensive is the fourth section. It includes first a brief overview
of language use on street name signs at various times in Latvia’s history; second,
one example is given to demonstrate that foreign languages have been accepted on
unofficial street name signs; third, a scrupulous characterization of the multi-​level
language management of the house number sign and involved actors’ interests andapplied strategies is provided. This section is followed by a discussion on language
management stages and language problem management of the house number sign.
The sixth section shares the houseowner’s views on the trilingual sign. In the final
section, theoretical and practical questions are summarized and the most significant conclusions are presented.

2 Th
 eoretical framework
2.1 L anguage Management Theory and language management
First defined in the 1980s and later discussed by many scholars (e.g., Jernudd &Neustupný 1987; Nekvapil 2016; Fairbrother, Nekvapil & Sloboda 2018), Language
Management Theory (LMT) is a theoretical framework that allows one to analyze and interpret various metalinguistic activities on a language and communication in different settings. According to theory, language management (LM) is alanguage-​related behavior with respect to linguistic issues (mainly problems). The
process of LM traditionally consists of five stages:
1.	 Deviations from norms (linguistic, communicative, or sociocultural) are intentionally introduced or accidentally occur.
2.	 Deviations from norms are noted.
3.	 The noted deviations are evaluated (or not evaluated).
4.	 (Correction) adjustment designs are selected to remove the deviations (or notselected).
5.	The adjustment designs are implemented (or not implemented). (Jernudd &Neustupný 1987; Sloboda 2009: 17)

If the second and third stages are related to the recognition and formulation ofa problem, then later stages refer to its management: planning, implementation,and possibly evaluation of a solution (for more on this, see Lanstyák 2018: 71).
Depending on the involved actors and situation, a process can be simple management that occurs at the micro level or organized management that occurs trans-​situationally. LM cycle(s) can incorporate both contexts combining and contrasting
actions and responses of individual actor(s) and public authority (-ies). Thus, LMT206Solvita Burr (née Pošeiko)is also a useful tool for investigating power relationships between actors and theirlanguage-​related interests.
Some questions should be considered when thinking about LM of public signsin Latvia: What is meant by norm in the context of LL? What factors can affect theappearance of deviations? Who evaluates deviations? How does implementationof an adjustment design into practice look? The next section draws attention tothese questions, theoretically defining types of language problems and their management in the context of LL and practically outlining the legal ways of managing
them in Latvia.

2.2 L anguage problems in LL and their management in Latvia
In LMT, “language problems are the linguistic, communicative and associatedsocio-​cultural phenomena that are not only noted but also evaluated negatively”(Nekvapil 2012: 160). In other words, there is only a problem if someone (e.g.,author, recipient, inspector) sees it as such.
In Latvia, the State Language Center (SLC) is the public body which is responsible for the implementation of state language policy into practice, monitoring
and controlling language use, and ensuring dominance of Latvian in the publicdomain. SLC has legal right to demand remedial action for an identified language
problem. Its duty is also to understand the nature of the normative documentsthat regulate language use in Latvia and explain them to the public in a way that
there would be no uncertainties regarding the use of language in sociolinguistic
domains, including LL (SLC 2017). In this sense it functions as a mediator between
prescriptive norm and practice.
However, it is useful to understand what constitutes a language problem inthe LL. Firstly, public signs can be described with respect to linguistic norms interms of problems if they are based on grammar or spelling mistakes (e.g., a lackor improper use of diacritics in Latvian text) and stylistic awkwardness. Suchproblems are first related to the concept of “correctness” with respect to a standard
norm. In Latvia, language problems in the LL, especially in advertisements, aremost often seen, analyzed and criticized from a prescriptive point of view, accompanied by suggestions of corrections which conform to prescriptive norms (e.g.,
Ragačevičs & Zilgalve 2015; Ločmele 2015). According to the SLC, such language
problems can usually be resolved easily and quickly. Sign owners tend to become
frustrated in instances of large-​format ads or expensive signage, as the replacement entails significant financial expense (Interview in SLC, 20.02.2018). They do
not oppose the language culture; dissatisfaction is due to economic reasons.
Secondly, a language problem may be described with respect to communicative
norms in terms of sociolinguistic problems if the choice of linguistic code (dialector language) or its visual layout for a public sign is not in accordance with theproposed language situation and its language regime, i.e., language choice in theofficial or commercial sphere of the Latvian LL.

Nationalist ideology and individual interests

207

The Official Language Law, issued and adopted by Parliament of Latvia in 1999,
is the main normative document that must be considered for planning and evaluating language use in texts placed in the LL by private individuals, companies,
municipal authorities and government. Several parts of Articles 18 and 21 of theState Language Law apply directly to public texts in Latvian LL. These regulatethat public signage must be in Latvian only where state duties are concerned(including, most prominently, public bodies and road signs). On commercial signs,
however, a Latvian-​plus rule applies: other languages are explicitly allowed as longthey are used in addition to Latvian and if they are not more dominant than Latvian. The law does not regulate unofficial communication, internal communication
between national or ethnic groups, or religious activities. Thus symbolic signs with
unofficial house or village names or historical city names, and notices of religious
communities can be published in foreign languages.
The legal understanding of the term “foreign language” and the use of foreign
languages in various sociolinguistic domains are the most controversial topics of
discussion at present in relation to the Official Language Law (e.g., Burr 2021).
If a norm itself is questioned (e.g., a specific article of the Official Language
Law or a provision by the Cabinet of Ministers), it can be seen as a discursively
produced metalinguistic language problem or a metaproblem—​a “generalized
language problem” (Lanstyák 2018: 69)—​within the organized LM. It is a macro-​level problem which may lead to further language problems due to the potential
scope of its interpretations.
The next paragraphs examine excerpts from the Official Language Law and subordinate regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers and municipal rules which directly
regulate official signage, keeping in mind that “the language law represents oneof rather strictly institutionalized discourses of metalinguistic character” (Dovalil
2015: 364). More specifically, attention is paid to the first part of two articles of the
Official Language Law (see Table 1). On one hand, they have been used to support the rejection of the trilingual sign. On the other hand, they have also been
contested as unconstitutional (incompatible with the Constitution of the Republicof Latvia), and have been mentioned and discussed as complex metalinguistic
language problems. This will be discussed further in the chapter.
Article 18 of the Official Language Law is associated with Regulation No. 50of the Cabinet of Ministers (see the middle column of Table 1). Both normative
documents specify that place names are to be created and used in Latvian. According to Paragraph 45 of Regulation No. 50 of the Cabinet of Ministers, mostnames of Latvian places and geographic objects must be registered in the PlaceName Database.2 Street names are not included here; each municipality is responsible for street names’ compilation and publication.

2

The Place Name Database is available in Latvian at https://​vietva​rdi.lgia.gov.lv/​vv/​
to_​www.sakt. Accessed August 12, 2018.

208

Solvita Burr (née Pošeiko)

Table 1: Excerpts from normative documents which regulate language use in the LL(the official English translation)
Article of Official Language Law(1999)

Relevant Regulations of the
Cabinet of Ministers

Article 18.
(1) Place names in the Republicof Latvia shall be created anduse thereof shall be in the official
language.

3. Geographical names in Latvia 1.3. Number signs onshall be created in Latvian
buildings are to beaccording to the norms of
deployed and maintained
Latvian.
by the owners or
45. Official geographical names
managers of the building.
and official parallel names shall be 3.8. Text on number
made public. Each geographical signs identifying
name authority has a duty tobuildings, street or
ensure the availability of official squares must be in thegeographical names and official official language.
parallel names assigned thereby 3.9. Street names should
to users.
be used in accordance(Regulations No. 50, 2012)
with Annex 1 to thisregulation.
The enforcement of
the binding rules iscontrolled by the local
authority, Liepāja
Municipal Police.

Article 21.
2. The institutions and persons(1) Information provided for public
referred to in Article 21 of theinformation purposes by State
Official Language Law may
and local government institutions,provide information in a foreign
courts and institutions constituting
language concurrently with thethe judicial system, State and local
official language in information
government undertakings, andthat is intended for publiccompanies in which the greatest
awareness in places accessible toshare of capital is owned by thethe public if this information isState or a local government, shallrelated to:
be provided only in the official
international tourism;
language, except in cases determined international measures;in Paragraph five of this section.
safety reasons;This provision is also applicable tofree circulation of goods of theprivate institutions, organizations,
European Union;
companies, and self-​employedepidemics or dangerous
persons, who perform, on the basis of infectious diseases; the rights andlaws or other regulatory enactments, obligations of foreign citizens
specific public functions, if theplaced in places of imprisonment;
provision of information is related
emergency situations.
to the performance of the relevant(Regulations No. 130, 2005)
functions.

Liepāja’s Municipal
Rule 2

Nationalist ideology and individual interests

209

Table 1: Continued
Article of Official Language Law(1999)

Relevant Regulations of the
Cabinet of Ministers

Liepāja’s Municipal
Rule 2(5) Observing the purpose of thisLaw, […] the Cabinet of Ministers
shall determine cases where aforeign language may be usedconcurrently with the state language
in information that is intended for
public awareness in places accessible
to the public.

In 2009, the municipal government of the city of Liepāja published RuleNo. 2, “Directions for the Placement of Signs Indicating Building Number, Street
or Square Names,” which reiterates the necessity of using the state language on
signs indicating the building number and street or square names (see the right-​
hand column of Table 1). A complete list of street names in Liepāja is provided in
Annex 1, mentioned in Article 3.9 of the regulation. The list includes Rucavas iela(‘Rucava Street’); the name’s use on a Liepāja house number sign will be discussed
in more detail below.
As the process of the case is complicated, it is therefore worth looking at
Lanstyák’s theory of language problem management (Lanstyák 2014, 2018).
Lanstyák, focusing on the resolution process for language problems and discourse-​
related problem situations, has defined nine involvement strategies that actors use
to deal with a language problem (see Table 2).

210

Solvita Burr (née Pošeiko)

Table 2: Involvement strategies and their main aim (following Lanstyák 2018: 79–​88)
Involvement strategy Aim
Devolution

to transfer the burden of the problem onto somebody else (anindividual or a group)

Alleviation

to reduce the problem without getting rid of it, to create apartial solution

Solution

to resolve the problem, to completely remove it

Ignoring

to act as if the problem did not exist

Denialto disclaim the problem’s existence

Belittlement

to create impression that the problem is less serious than it isin reality

Mitigation

to mentally lessen the problem without managing the outercircumstances of the problem situation

Elimination

to get rid of the problem by reinterpreting the problem
situation

Acceptanceto mentally justify the need to live together with the problem
as it isHowever, in practice all actors (including both those who do or do not consider
a sign to be a language problem) have limited ability to initiate and apply strategic
actions, as each actor’s practical scope is limited to his/​her position’s official duties
and obligations (e.g., to challenge administrative protocol, examine the complaint,
or evaluate the resolution process of the language problem), following a formal
legal framework. Actors’ strategies may be aimed at changing the discourse, thecircumstances of language use or the ideas, thoughts, or opinions of other actors.
Actors may be spurred by a desire to maintain or change language policy and thus
public discourse on languages to be accepted in the Latvian LL. Actors may also
hold the desire to replace one language practice with another (e.g., changing multilingual street sign to monolingual sign). But the reason for the application of astrategy may simply be an actor’s desire to reasonably convince other actors of theinaccuracy of his/​her view.
As the ethnolinguistic and sociolinguistic situations in a city can function as a
useful example in the LM process, the next section gives an overview of the ethnic
composition in Liepāja and language situation in the LL.

3 E
 thnolinguistic situation in Liepāja
Liepāja is the third largest city in Latvia, located on the west coast of Latvia. Liepāja’s
population is 76,604, of which 56.08% are ethnic Latvians, 29.75% Russians, 4.75%

Nationalist ideology and individual interests

211

Ukrainians, 3.14% Belarusians, 2.98% Lithuanians and 1% Poles.3 Public organizations for ethnic minorities in the city include a Russian society with more than 600
members,4 two Ukrainian organizations, one Belarusian community, a Lithuaniansociety, a Polish society and a German association.
Research on the Liepāja LL was carried out in May 2018; it methodologicallyfollowed the traditional study of LL in the cityscape (e.g., Gorter 2006; Backhaus
2007; Gorter, Shohamy 2009), providing photographs, coding and analysis of all
written texts visible along the streets. In total, 1,320 signs were photographed andanalyzed according to criteria which can be divided into five groups: placement,
type of sign, ownership, language use, and information in each language. Quantitative data analysis shows that Latvian was used on 1,159 signs (87.8%), English
on 315 signs (23.9%), Russian on 39 signs (2.9%), and German on 7 (0.5%). Of the LL
signs in Russian, 13 were official signs (e.g., multilingual city maps and reference
information on historical heritage buildings).

4 S
 treet names and street names signs under language
ideology in Latvia
4.1 U nofficial street name signs as proof of multilingualism
Alongside official street name signs which comply with the relevant normative
documents, there are still Soviet-​era bilingual signs extant in some places—​mostly
villages and small parish centers—​in the Latvian LL. In some instances, symbolic
bilingual or multilingual signs placed next to official street name signs and housenumber signs refer to language practices, linguistic identity and the value of
language over time. For example, Figure 1 shows three LL signs. The first from the
top is the official street name sign in Latvian, below which is a symbolic trilingual
sign in Russian, German and archaic Latvian, which had all at some point in history been used for street name signs at that location.

3
4

Information on population by ethnic group is published by the Office of Citizenshipand Migration Affairs, on WWW at http://​www.pmlp.gov.lv/​lv/​ass​ets/​docume​nts/​
1aaaa/​ISPN_​Pasv​aldi​bas_​pec_​T TB.pdf. Accessed July 4, 2018.
The Liepāja Russian Society is one of the most active Russian organizations in Latvia,
whose members include not only Russians, but also Ukrainians, Belarusians andLatvians. Available:http://​www.lro.lv/​683.html. Accessed July 16, 2018.

212

Solvita Burr (née Pošeiko)Figure 1: From top: official street name sign, symbolic name sign and informative
sign on languages used in the Soviet period (Pošeiko 2018)

The official sign differs from the symbolic sign in its color, size and boldface
text. Below this sign is an additional sign which provides cultural-​historical information in Latvian and English about language use on street name signs until theSoviet period; namely, that until 1877, street names were in German; until 1902
they were in two languages (German and Russian); and from 1902 to 1918, threelanguages (German, Russian and Latvian). In the Soviet period, street name signs
were bilingual in Latvian and Russian.
The illustrated example shows the possibility of placing unofficial street namesigns in other languages or scripts in the Latvian LL, as long as they differ visually from official signs (i.e., do not attempt to imitate official signs), and are placed
below official street name signs (e.g., under or to the right).
However, in 2012, after the referendum on the elevation of Russian to the statusof a second official language in Latvia,5 a discussion was started by Yevgeniy
Osipov, a representative of the “Native Language” organization, to allow street
name signs in Latvian and Russian in cities where a majority of the local population voted for Russian as a second official language. Although only 20% of
Liepāja’s residents voted for the elevation of Russian to the status of a second
5

The results of the language referendum on the promotion of Russian to the status ofa second official language were 24.9% (273,347) FOR and 74.8% (821,722) AGAINST.

Nationalist ideology and individual interests

213

official language (NeoGeo 2012), Osipov placed a house number sign with a street
name in Latvian and Russian on his parents’ house in Liepāja.
Bearing in mind the theoretical, legal and practical issues that have been
discussed so far, and the language situation of Liepāja’s LL, a number sign placedby Ljudmila Rjazanova on her Liepāja home in 2015 will be analyzed, describing its
LM. The broader discussion will be on actors’ role in the process, their motivations,power, interests and arguments, and on the language problem management
involved in this case.

4.2 E
 xposition of the multi-​level LM of the trilingual housenumber signThis section consists of six subsections and provides a description of the language
management cycles of a trilingual house number sign.
In May 2015, Ljudmila Rjazanova, a deputy of Liepāja’s City Council who waselected from the Social Democratic party “Harmony Center,”6 placed a housenumber sign with a street name in three languages: Latvian, English, and Russian(see Figure 2). On the other side, she left the old sign, on which the street nameis only in Latvian. This sign lost its relevance in 2009, when Liepāja Municipality
approved new rules for number signs’ visual design (Liepāja’s Rule 2, 2009).

Figure 2: From the left: trilingual house number sign and house number sign in
Latvian (Pošeiko 2018)

6

The Social Democratic party “Harmony Center” is an ideologically left-​wing party
which actively advocates for favorable relations with Russia and is constantly critical of Latvia’s participation in NATO. The party also pushes for minority rights andfriendly interethnic relations. The party is currently in power in large Latvian cities,
including Riga, Daugavpils and Rēzekne.

214

Solvita Burr (née Pošeiko)

4.2.1. D evelopment of the LM at local, regional and state levels
After about a month, a Liepāja police officer noticed the sign and filed an administrative protocol about a street name appearing also in foreign languages. The
sign owner (hereinafter referred to as the owner) challenged the Liepāja Municipal
Police (hereinafter the Municipal Police), which resulted in the Deputy Chief of theMunicipal Police’s terminating of the previous decision, because the sign compliedwith Liepāja’s Rule No. 2. This LM cycle ended in an outcome favorable to theowner. The most powerful actor (the Deputy Chief of Police) reviewed the case,and in evaluating the language problem identified by his subordinate determinedthat there was no violation as the “text on the number sign is in the state language”(Liepāja’s Rule 2, 2009; emphasis by author).
In the beginning, the SLC was only involved remotely, requesting that theowner correct the violation in two weeks. This was ignored. In October 2015, theSLC received a complaint from the Municipal Police about a possible violation of
the Official Language Law. Reacting to this complaint, an SLC inspector went tothe address listed, where she identified a language problem in terms of language
regime and drafted an administrative protocol about the use of foreign languages.
The owner was found to have violated Articles 18 and 21 of the Official Language
Law (see Table 1). The owner challenged the ruling again, but on January 19, 2016,
the SLC director approved the administrative issue and levied a 75 EUR fine. The
owner fought the case in Liepāja Municipal Court in April of 2016. After losing
this case, she appealed to the next higher authority, the Kurzeme Regional Court,
which rejected the appeal. The final decision states that “street names are public
information which concern legitimate public interests and are intended to provide
public information. A number sign is placed by a private individual; however, it
must follow the local government’s procedures as to how it should be done andhow the information provided to the public is presented” (Constitutional Court
2017a). The Regional Court agreed with the decision of the Liepāja Court andrefused to change the ruling simply because the owner disagreed with it.
It appears that an employee of the Municipal Police7 did not agree with the first
result and reported the trilingual sign to the relevant public authority. As the SLC
is obliged to respond to received submissions, the sign was re-​evaluated, this timeby a person who knew the legal rules on language use in LL and who had experience with resolving language problems.
At this stage the sociolinguistic language problem was likely viewed more
broadly, in the context of a stronger legal document: holistically, all local government regulations on language use in the public space are subordinate to the Official Language Law. However, an agreement between the inspector and the owner7

Constitutional Court Case No. 2017-​01-​01 does not indicate a specific plaintiff but
rather, is submitted on behalf of the Municipality as a whole.

Nationalist ideology and individual interests215

was not reached due to differing views. Therefore, litigation was initiated at a local
and regional level. This LM cycle was not the last one.

4.2.2. Th e owner’s complaint to Constitutional Court
On November 3, 2016, the Constitutional Court received the Constitutional Complaint (hereinafter the Complaint) from the owner. Lawyers of the Latvian Human
Rights Committee8 were involved in its preparation; one of them also represented
the owner in the Constitutional Court.
The Complaint consisted of the list of disputed normative documents and a
description of the circumstances of the case, which included the depiction of
the then-​current LM process, the judgment of the Kurzeme Regional Court andreferences to the historical and contemporary language situation in Latvia. In
the beginning, the complainant mentioned several sections of national and international documents (articles and points), which were violated in applying thepreviously-​mentioned norms, according to the owner and her lawyers. In otherwords, the owner requested that the Constitutional Court recognize that the firstparts of Articles 18 and 21 of the Official Language Law (see Table 1) were incompatible with multiple regulatory documents:• The Constitution of the Republic of Latvia (precisely Articles 91 and 96, the first
sentence of Article 100, Article 114) (Constitution 1922)• The Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (precisely
Section 1 of Article 1, Section 1 of Article 10, Parts 1 and 3 of Article 11) (Minority
convention 2005)• The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms(precisely Articles 8 and 10) (Convention 1997)• The international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (precisely Section 1 of
Article 17, Section 1 of Article 19, Article 27) (Preamble 1992)

These documents are related primarily to the idea of privacy, equality, the freedomof verbal expression, and the right of minorities to use and develop the spoken andwritten forms of their language, ethnic cultural preservations and privacy.
In the complaint, the owner stated that Article 4 on the “Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities” (Latvia declares Article 11, Part 3 asbinding, insofar as it is not incompatible with the Constitution and other normative acts in force in Latvia regulating the state language use) is incompatible with
Article 19, point C “Pretexts” (Vienna Convention 1969). The case also cited articles
from other documents: “Law on Administrative Territories and Populated Areas”

8

The Latvian Human Rights Committee is a human rights non-​governmental organization founded in 1992. Its primary concerns are tenant rights, minority rights andthe legal status of individuals.

216

Solvita Burr (née Pošeiko)(Administrative Territories 2008), “Liepāja’s Rule No. 2” (see Table 1) and “Latvian
Administrative Violations Code” (Administrative Violations Code 1984).
In the complaint, the owner repeated that she added a sign at her own expense
and that the street name was written in Latvian as well. She also pointed out thattext in Latvian was first on the sign and highlighted with uppercase letters, andthat the old house number sign was only in Latvian. She emphasized that “[she]belongs to the Russian minority and the community of Russian speakers in Latvia.
[She] has a right to preserve and develop her native language, which includes communicating her place of living to members of her community in their language”(Constitutional Court 2017a). Repeatedly mentioned is Article 11 of the “Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities” regarding the right ofminorities to place information in their own language in publicly-​visible locations
if that information is personally important. However, the owner had been asked
to place the sign in Latvian only. The complaint disagreed with the Latvian reservation that Part 3 of Article 11 of the Convention is binding insofar as it does notcontradict the Constitution and other normative documents regulating the use of
the state language.
In addition, the complainant quoted the opinion of the EU Consultative Committee from 2013, which regrets that there has been no change in the recognitionof the use of minority languages in Latvia, and she reiterated that “the open use ofminority languages alongside the state language in place names, street names, andother topographical names has a significant symbolic value in terms of integration,
as it confirms that the minority is valued in a given region and is a valuable segmentof society. It increases the sense of trust in minority communities and contributes
to social cohesion” (Constitutional Court 2017a). The complaint also pointed to theunequal treatment of linguistic communities: “She is a representative of the Russian minority,” wrote the complainant, “which is in an unequal position with therepresentatives of a second minority (in number)—​Latgalians. This is demonstrated
by the SLC’s acceptance of a road sign in Kārsava with text in the Latgalian written
language in addition to Latvian”9 (Constitutional Court 2017a).
The Complaint recalled that Latvian did not historically disappear in the context of social bilingualism during the Soviet era, and that the street name signs in
Latvian and Russian have not been the reason for the decline of the role of Latvian. It argued that Latvian is no longer in need of additional protection, since all
the inhabitants of Latvia have good knowledge of the state language. The share

9

Kārsava is a city in the Latgale region, which placed street name signs, road signs,
business name signs exclusively or also in the Latgalian written language in addition
to Latvian after a local municipal initiative. The SLC ruled against the municipality
because the text in Latgalian written language was dominant on some signs. However, municipality successfully legally convinced the SLC, arguing that the Latgalian
written language is a historical variety of the state language, which means that it isstill Latvian, just with a different written tradition.

Nationalist ideology and individual interests

217

of Latvian as well as the number of speakers of Latvian among minorities has
increased (Constitutional Court 2017a).
Some conclusions can be drawn about the Complaint. First, in the complaint
the case of the house number sign is considered broadly, challenging the legitimate
nature of articles of the State Language Law in the context of other national andinternational documents and thus defining these articles as metalinguistic language
problems. This has led to a situation in which multilingual building number signsin Latvia are considered a sociolinguistic language problem.
Second, minorities’ right to equality, non-​discriminatory treatment and the freeuse of their language (including in LL), was highlighted. Therefore, the parallelwith the Latgalians is drawn. One group is not allowed to publish official information in their own language while another is accepted, according to the argumentsof the owner and her defenders. Here alleviation and mitigation are used as thestrategies of language problem management (see Table 2).
Third, only one sentence indirectly justifies the use of another foreign
language: English. Tourism is mentioned as the main criterion for choosing alanguage. This allows one to consider that the main “battle” (linguistic interest) isover the recognition of the use of Russian in a sign.
Fourth, the monolingual sign mentioned by the owner (see Figure 2) is inappropriate according to municipality’s rules on the visual design of building number
signs (Liepāja’s Rule No. 2, 2009). This, similarly to the examples mentioned previously, can be described as a symbolic house number sign which no longer functions
to provide official information.

4.2.3. M etalinguistic behavior of the Constitutional Court
The Constitutional Court evaluated this case as complicated, and therefore its evaluation period was extended. The decision to initiate proceedings was announced
on January 4, 2017. It stated that “the Constitutional Court can assess the compliance of Latvian national law with international agreements entered into by Latvia
which are not in conflict with the Constitution” (Constitutional Court 2017b). For
further LM, it is important that the Constitutional Court:• rejects the owner’s claim of a restriction of rights as a minority representative
because she is a citizen of Latvia and has not legally demonstrated in the Compliant
that her case is related to any group’s desire to preserve their intrinsic features overa long period of time. Such evidence would be consistent with the definition ofminority in UN documents and the Minority Convention ratified by Latvia. (Fromthe documents it is not immediately clear how the owner should express the will topreserve the uniqueness of the ethnic group, as it must be demonstrated in practice
to be legally accepted.)• emphasizes that Article 91 of the Constitution must be read in conjunction with
Article 4, which details the constitutional status of Latvian in Latvia. There is no218

Solvita Burr (née Pošeiko)legally grounded claim of a person to write a street name in foreign language thatwould follow from Article 91.
• points out that Latgalians have the de facto right to use their own language, andthat there is no legal basis for comparison between the two groups.

In general, the Constitutional Court concluded that the Complaint lacks legal
arguments for a claim of incompatibility with national and international documents
or a violation of fundamental rights established in the Constitution.
The Constitutional Court decided to initiate a case “On the compliance of thefirst section of Article 18 and the first section of Article 21 of the Official Language
Law with Article 96 of the Constitution,” but refused to initiate proceedings
regarding other claims specified in the application (see above). Article 96 of theConstitution reads as follows: “Everyone has the right to inviolability of his or
her private life, home and correspondence” (Constitution 1922). The Saeima (Parliament of Latvia), as the institution that issued the challenged law, was obliged
to submit a response to the Constitutional Court with a description of the factual
circumstances of the case and the legal basis.

4.2.4. R esponse of the Saeima
In March 2017, the Constitutional Court received a response from the Saeima, inwhich it was stated that Article 18 of the Official Language Law is in compliancewith Article 96 of the Constitution, whereas proceedings regarding the complianceof Article 21 with the Constitution should be terminated, as it is not binding to theapplicant. The owner in this case was not among the actors to which this articleof the law applies; she was not a self-​employed person engaged in informing
society and performing public functions (see Table 1). The application of this provision was a metalinguistic mistake committed by an SLC employee. The Saeima
informed thatthe monopolistic use of the state language [was] justified not only socially and linguistically, but also psychologically: the need for a unified address system for successful postal work; maintaining Latvian as a national value in the context ofincreased language competition, and increasing its influence on the Latvian culturalenvironment; the right of Latvian citizens to receive public information in the statelanguage; gaps between knowledge of the state language and use to achieve legitimate goals. (Constitutional Court 2017a)

In addition to mentioning the promotion of integration in Latvia, the promotionof positive linguistic attitudes towards the state language as an economically andsymbolically valuable language was mentioned as an important reason why place
names should be solely in Latvian. At the response’s end, it was highlighted thatthe placement of the sign in Latvian was not related to the freedom of expression,
nor did it prevent the owner from using their preferred language in private. Societal interests supersede individual interests in language choice for street names.

Nationalist ideology and individual interests

219

The Saeima’s response ended with the conclusion (and implicit recommendation tothe owner) that street names in several languages are publishable in private texts,
including signs in the private sphere (see above for a symbolic number sign), but
are not acceptable in the official sphere.

4.2.5. Involving experts to obtain convincing arguments
After about a month, the term of the responsible judge expired, and he was
replaced. This meant that the case was taken over by another person who had tofamiliarize himself with the circumstances of the problem situation and the current
process. Firstly, the new judge asked the Saeima to submit documents (minutesof Saeima meetings, decisions, opinions of external experts), illustrating the procedural progress of the adoption of the Official Language Law, in order to findout the essence of the challenged norms and their compliance with international
standards. Secondly, he invited experts to reply in writing to specific questions
within their area of competence and comment on the case filed. The invited actors
were: (1) the Ministry of Justice, which organizes supervision of compliance with
the Official Language Law; (2) the Ombudsman, which promotes the protection of
the human rights of individuals; (3) Latvia’s representative in international humanrights institutions; (4) SLC; (5) Professor Ina Druviete of the University of Latvia,
with scholarly expertise in language policy and sociolinguistics.
In general, the actors agreed with the arguments offered by the Saeima in its
reply. The Ministry of Justice emphasized the national significance of Latvian: “Thestate, with all the means available to it, should maximally promote the use of Latvian in Latvia —​the only place in the world where the Latvian nation is based”(Constitutional Court 2017c). The Ministry also rejected the owner’s idea of thenumber sign’s association with her privacy: “She knows her address, the informative sign on the outside of the home is in no way related to her private life or
housing, but is focused on informing society” (Constitutional Court 2017c).
The Ombudsman joined the conclusion of the Saeima and the Constitutional
Court that the first section of Article 21 did not apply to the owner in this case;therefore proceedings related to this article were terminated. The Ombudsman
emphasized thatfor the use of Latvian in street name signs and other place name signs has a legitimate
aim: to strengthen the use of the state language and to ensure the comprehensive useof Latvian in the public space as the basis of a consolidated society. The state may
regulate the use of Latvian in compliance with fundamental human rights […]. The
restriction established in section 1 of Article 18 of the Official Language Law is necessary for the achievement of a legitimate aim in a democratic society. (Constitutional
Court 2017c)

Latvia’s representative in international human rights institutions raised an issue
with the interpretation of the first section of Article 18 of the Official Language Law:

220

Solvita Burr (née Pošeiko)

It is necessary to find out whether the text of the first section of Article 18 of the
Official Language Law gives an individual a clear idea of the legislature’s desire to
regulate what information may be included in the number sign —​either the legislature wanted to define the minimum requirement, namely that information in Latvian
is compulsory, but under certain conditions also allow for the parallel use of otherlanguages, or it wished to establish the maximum regulation that the use of foreign
languages in the number sign is not permissible. (Constitution 2017c)

The Constitutional Court, in reviewing the process of the adoption of the Official
Language Law, concluded that the information in the first section of Article 18 is
the maximum regulation. Only the state language is possible, without exception.
The SLC pointed out that there had been two similar cases in Liepāja over the
past year, but that those were exceptions, because people mostly have a clear
understanding of the regulatory framework. The institution as of yet has notreceived information that tourists have been unable to find an address due to theLatvian language. Here, the SLC also justified the mistake made by the employee
in applying to the owner the first section of Article 21:
Since violations have been detected since 2012, such as displaying a street name in a
number sign in a foreign language, this article is also applicable in such cases. Section
1 of Article 21 of the Official Language Law is applicable only in Liepāja, because thebinding regulations of the municipality do not provide for administrative liability forsuch an offence. (Constitutional Court 2017c)

According to the SLC, there are exceptions to the application of the specific provision. For example, if there is a lack of legal regulation at the local level, there isa metalinguistic problem. In its report the SLC appeared to interpret the Official
Language Law as it stands. Thus, the first section of Article 21 in this case closed
the loophole; Liepāja’s Rule No. 2 is a requirement for Latvian on street name signs,
but the Liepāja City Administrative Liability Regulations “do not specify punishment for the lack of Latvian or its use in conjunction with foreign languages”(Constitutional Court 2017c).
Druviete referred in her response to theoretical papers in language policy andthe latest sociolinguistic studies in Latvia (including Pošeiko’s dissertation on LL
in the Baltic states, cf. Pošeiko 2015a). She stated that “the task of language policy
is to protect the national language necessary for the existence of a state while also
guaranteeing minority language rights […]. The monopoly in certain areas of existence of Latvian, and hence the Latvian ethnic group, is a question of independence”(Constitutional Court 2017c). She also highlighted that “the exclusion of individuals from the scope of the first section of Article 21 of the Official Language Law isconsidered a weakness of this law and may have an adverse effect on the language
use in Latvia” (Constitutional Court 2017c). Druviete emphasized the close connection between language and national identity as well as between language andthe social cohesion of the inhabitants of Latvia. According to her, such a metalinguistic language problem can have a negative impact on language use at stateNationalist ideology and individual interests

221

level, which may indirectly contribute to the emergence of future sociolinguistic
language problems in the Latvian LL.
The opinion on the preparation of the case for consideration was announced in
May 2017. Three additional actors were invited to attend the following month: theMinistry of Foreign Affairs, University of Latvia lecturer Māris Lejnieks and Associate Professor at the University of London Mārtiņš Paparinskis, who provided
opinions on the compliance of Article 4 of the Law “On the Convention on theProtection of National Minorities” with the objects and purposes of this Convention. All unanimously concluded that this article does not contradict the object andpurpose of the Convention.

4.2.6. Th e final decision of the Constitutional Court
Following the session of the Constitutional Court, in which seven judges participated, everyone was given an opportunity to familiarize themselves with the casematerials and express written opinions. By September 28, the only written opinion
they had received came from the owner herself. She wrote: “The agreement on
the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 22 confirms Latvia’s commitment
to linguistic diversity. The use of multiple languages in the public space had notthreatened Latvian in the period from 1918 to 1934, when the knowledge of Latvian among minorities was less than it is now” (Constitutional Court 2017a). Hereit was again emphasized that the owner is a Russian and that information in Russian and English is a matter of private rights. The owner did not agree that in thiscase the use of Latvian had been unacceptably restricted. In her opinion, everyone
interested had been given the right to receive information in the state language.
The text in Latvian was furthermore visually prominent. Moreover, she noted that
Russian has been used in street names since the 1960s (Constitutional Court 2017a).
The final decision of the Constitutional Court was announced on November 17,
2017. First, general conclusions about the case were presented. The first conclusion already showed the court’s ruling that the house number sign must be onlyin Latvian:
In preparing signs, private persons have the responsibility to hold to official definedplace and street names. The responsibility to use the state language in place names, as
defined in section 1 of Article 18 of the Official Language Law, cannot be narrowed byapplying it to government institutions, and applies to private persons. The prohibition
to use a foreign language alongside Latvian on the building number sign follows fromsection 1 of Article 18 of the Official Language Law, which was applied according to
the municipal code of Liepaja City Council, which reiterates this opinion. (Constitutional Court 2017a)

The ruling emphasized that
Article 4 of the Constitution reflects the constitutional status of Latvian […]. The statelanguage is an integral part of the constitutional identity of Latvia. Latvian confers

222

Solvita Burr (née Pošeiko)the state a certain —​a specifically Latvian —​national cultural identity […]. The principle of a national state imposes not only a negative obligation on the state not to do
anything that could weaken Latvia’s Latvian identity, but also —​and in particular —​the positive obligations to strengthen it in various ways. The state has the responsibility to ensure with all available tools that Latvian fulfils its function as the statelanguage —​being the language of communication and society and the language of
democratic participation. Ensuring the language’s status in public visual information
has a vital role in language acquisition and improving societal cohesion. Place names
are part of the cultural heritage of Latvia, and the state has a responsibility to preserve and defend them. However, street name signs are public information which arenecessary for public communication […]. The reproduction of the content of the sign
and its placement is not communication of the building owner with either society as
a whole nor any member of it. (Constitution 2017c)

The final decision of the Constitutional Court was “the prohibition of the use of aforeign language parallel to Latvian on a building number sign does not violate therights to the inviolability of private and domestic life defined in Article 96 of theConstitution” (Constitution 2017c).
The symbolic timing of the decision’s announcement must be emphasized: theday before Latvia’s Proclamation Day. At the state level, the owner and society certainly were reminded of Latvian constitutional values, including the state language.
The language’s role in the creation and feeling of a national cultural identity (themicro level) and constitutional identity of the Latvian state (the macro level) was
highlighted in the response letter from the Saeima, the opinions of those invited by
the Constitutional Court, and in the conclusions of the Constitutional Court. Thus,in the view of the public bodies, the result of LM in this case was a strengtheningof the discourse about the state language as being an important element of national
identity and common language in Latvia.
The uncovering of one case about a house number sign in this section
demonstrates the consequential application of multiple LM models in two years,
the complication of the LM process and consequential continuity, including many
actors. The discussion of the metalinguistic actions of the actors will be continued
in the next sections.

4.3 I nterests and strategies of the actors
The actors in this case can be divided into two groups: those defending and thoseagainst the multilingual house number sign. Each actor assessed the legal justification (or lack thereof) of foreign language use, metalinguistically discussing andstrategically using different normatives in national and international documents.
Each side used excerpts of documents and expert opinions that they agreed withand which were situationally useful to the prosecution or defense.
To use Lanstýak’s terms, the defense (the owner and her advocates) tried
belittlement as its first strategy of language problem management (see Table 2),

Nationalist ideology and individual interests

223

repeatedly mentioning that the state language was included in the house number
sign. When this failed, they used the parts of national and international normative acts which were unclear, contradictory or misunderstood, which could havebeen interpreted as being in favor of the owner if they were not viewed in thecontext of other points within these or other documents (i.e., if they were decontextualized). After losing in the municipality court, it was clear that in the current
circumstances, the owner could not legally keep the unaltered sign. Consequently,
her strategy was to contest the articles of the Official Language Law at the statelevel in order to ensure that the sign was not legally a problem. Here they applied
elimination as the strategy of language problem management (see Table 2); themain idea was that the problem was not the multilingual sign, but some parts in
the Official Language Law.
Legal arguments (see the list of normative documents above), linguistic
arguments (knowledge and use of the state language) and personal arguments (native language, private communication with family members) were all used. The situation was also compared to the use of Latgalian written language in official signs.
The owner’s initiative contributed to the legal process in which those responsible
for the norm (Saeima, language policymakers and inspectors) had to re-​evaluate
parts of the State Language Law, justify their legitimacy and extend them to theowner’s language practice (the trilingual number sign).
The purpose of the metalinguistic activities of the two groups was based on linguistic discourse and the attempt to change the opposite group’s view. Advocatesof the trilingual sign sought official recognition of the use of Russian in a public
space, followed by changes of language practices in the LL. The owner initiated achange in discourse from the idea of the state language being threatened to theidea of its “sociolinguistic security.” She sought to change public opinion about Latvian as a specially protected language because, according to her, use and knowledge of the state language was (is) high.
In turn, the aim of LM by those responsible for the normative language issues (the Saeima) and the additional actors invited by the Constitutional Court(including the SLC) was to prevent such a change in public discourse (in particularsections of society) by defending the national ideology, strengthening the idea oflegitimacy of the Official Language Law and holding a monopoly for the statelanguage in official LL signs. The most useful argument in the process was the obligation of the state to protect Latvian by avoiding of an alternative language hierarchy, preventing Latvian from being “squeezed” out of official public domains. The
role of Latvian in the creation and preservation of national identity and communication between the Latvian citizens (i.e., the symbolic and integrative functions of
the language) was emphasized in different contexts.
Actors can also be defined as those who, in addition to analyzing the language
problem, also assessed the language problem management. The Saeima and theConstitutional Court evaluated not only the language problem, metalinguistic
problem (the State Language law’s compliance with the Constitution) and social
problem (in this case, the concept of privacy), but also the whole resolution process

224

Solvita Burr (née Pošeiko)of defined language problems. Consequently, they were responsible both for
language practices and for assessing the metalinguistic activities of advocating andcontrolling institutions within the framework of normative acts. This LM processincluded two metalinguistic problems: the misinterpretation of language use in a
number sign by a municipal policeman and the incorrect interpretation by a SLC
inspector of the first section of Article 21 of the Official Language Law.

5 D
 iscussion
5.1 N oting
The description of the proceedings shows that trilingual house number sign was
spotted and identified at its location as a language problem by two public officials(a city policeman and an SLC inspector) over the course of few months. Previously defined and relatively clear metalinguistic activities began at this point.
However, the language problem was re-​identified with each subsequent actor
involved; it was noticed again when looking at a photograph and getting to know
the circumstances of the case. Thus, it can be argued that the language problem is
detected as many times as actors are involved in LM issues.

5.2 E valuation and selection of adjustment design
Many actors (state institutions, non-​governmental organizations, experts) assessed
the language problem in a narrow or broad context on many occasions. Each actor
had the right, the need and/​or the obligation to express his/​her opinion, advocate
individual and linguistic group interests, though each of them had their own tasks
and motivations (e.g., to comment on the rights of ethnic minorities, to describe
the use of Latvian, to defend nationalist interests). Thus, the language problem was
associated with other socially significant problems: minority rights, divisions of
the private and public spaces, language acquisition, language situation (in particular, the use of Latvian in different public domains).
Public bodies unanimously expressed that the proper solution of the language
problem was a monolingual sign in Latvian. Although each used their own
arguments, the general idea was related to the protection of a national state,including concerns for and responsibilities to constitutional values, i.e., Latvian
as the state language in order to function as the basis for national identity and acommon language in all sociolinguistic domains. There was no suggestion of theequivalent functioning of Russian in such signs, so that the idea of bilingualism did
not develop more widely or become established as an acceptable language practice.
In turn, the owner and her lawyers did not perceive the number sign as alanguage problem or claimed an incompatibility between the two articles of the
Official Language Law and other national and international documents related to
the regulation of language use. Although they offered no direct amendments oradditions to existing norms explicitly, their objective at the macro level was toNationalist ideology and individual interests

225

attempt to change the Official Language Law providing for a wider use of minority
languages in Latvia. At the micro and meso level, their goal was to justify the street
name in three languages in the current legal context.

5.3 I mplementation
A clear indication of the necessary changes (in this case, a new house number sign
only in Latvian) was repeatedly expressed and communicated to the owner. However, she implemented none, even after receiving the decision of the Constitutional
Court. The language practice remained unchanged; on August 28, 2018, the sign
remained in its original place.
A resolution of the language problem has not followed the judicial result. Implementation has not occurred, and the owner has left the sign unchanged. None of
the actors have the legal right to go and remove the sign themselves, replace it withan alternative that complies with language policy in Latvia, or enjoin the ownerto do so herself. Though the owner lost the case, in practice, state institutions (andespecially the SLC) have thus far shown themselves to be powerless in enforcing
normative documents or compliance with court decisions at a state level. A situation has arisen in which it is impossible to achieve the desired result—​an official
sign only in the state language—​in a lawful way if the owner does not make thechange herself in good faith.
Thus, in this case, there is a partial solution of the language problem; the use offoreign language in building number signs is recognized as a deviation from thenorm, but adjustment design has not been implemented in practice. In turn, themetalinguistic problem has been resolved; the powerful public body has ruled that
section 1 of Article 18 of the State Language Law does not infringe the right to privacy, complies with other national and international normative documents and isbinding on Latvian citizens. However, it has not helped to change the views of theowner and to influence the language practice at the micro level. A logical question
arises: who is responsible for the final resolution of such a language problem?
The public affairs specialist for the Liepāja Municipal Police explained via
email that
Liepāja Police enforce the 2009 binding Rules No. 2 ‘Procedure for the placement ofbuilding number, street or square name signs in Liepāja’; however, the Constitutional
Court’s decision mentioned that it is the State Language Law which was violated,which the Municipal Police do not control. The execution of a court decision is controlled by a bailiff, not by the Municipal Police, and observance of the State Language
Law in Latvia is supervised by the State Language Center. Ensuring the sign’s change
is not in the jurisdiction of the Municipal Police. (email, May 17, 2018)

The SLC, on the other hand, transferred liability to the Municipal Police, arguingthat the SLC did not have the right to oblige an institution/​person to change a sign
(Interview in SLC, February 20, 2018.). Both actors used devolution as the strategyof language problem management (see Table 2) to shift responsibility for this phase

226

Solvita Burr (née Pošeiko)of language problem resolution or its consequences. The Municipal Police also
shifted responsibility to the Constitutional Court, demonstrating an inaccurate
understanding of the Court’s decision. This is not related to the language problem(i.e., does the number sign violate the State Language Law), but rather with themetalinguistic language problem (i.e., do the first section of Article 18 and the firstsection of Article 21 of the State Language Law infringe upon the right to privacy
and home inviolability provided for in the Constitution). It is not legally defined inany normative document who is entitled or obliged to remove a sign and replace itwith an official sign if the sign owner refuses to do so. A legally formulated action
plan for such cases in an administrative procedural law, municipal regulation or
the court decision would be necessary for LM to be effective not only legally, butalso practically.
Considering the case discussed above, the overall LM process of the housenumber sign can be divided into the following cycles:
1.	 Management cycle without additional experts at the municipal level.
2.	 Management cycle at the regional level.
3.	 Management cycle under SLC supervision.
4.	 The defense’s management cycle for the preparation of the complaint.
5.	 The Constitutional Court’s management cycle for initiating the case.
6.	 The management cycle of experts invited by the Constitutional Court.
7.	 The Constitutional Court’s management cycle for conclusion and decision making.
8.	 The management cycle for practical implementation of the result.

6 Th
 e owner’s thoughts about language management andlanguage use in Liepāja
As the owner’s Constitutional Court complaint is not publicly available, her
opinion is published on the website sputniknews.lv, which is subject to mixed
public opinion and is known for its bias against the Latvia state. A journalist tells
readers that the owner
deemed it necessary that the street name on her home was written not only in thestate language, but also in her mother tongue, as well as in the international language,
English, so that guests from anywhere in the world could find the home and that her
children could memorize their address in their native language. On one hand, this isdue to personal reasons; on the other, there is no reason to believe that any rights
were violated. On the contrary, the street name was written in larger letters in thestate language than it was in English or Russian. (Dorofejevs 2017)

It should be noted that argument does not hold water when considered in context: the street name is not translated differently in either of the two languages, so
its memorization could not possibly be a problem for children or tourists.

Nationalist ideology and individual interests

227

In order to get the owner’s opinion, I asked several questions over email
on April 22, 2018 about the house number sign, linguistic identity, her attitude
towards language policy and the language situation in Liepāja and Latvia, and preferred languages in Liepāja’s LL. A letter with her answers, dated May 3, after her
request, is published in full:10
I was born and raised in Liepāja. Latvia is my Motherland, and I do everything in
my power so that our Latvia develops. I am Russian, my mother tongue is Russian.
I speak Russian and Latvian fluently and can also understand and respond in Lithuanian. Maybe I make mistakes when writing in Latvian and I cannot be a writer, but
my knowledge does not prevent me from working or communicating with people.
And I believe that people are richer if they know several languages. Then there are noboundaries to communication… I am FOR Latvian as a state language… It is only necessary to find a way for citizens to learn the language. I learned the Latvian language
from playing with children and attending meetings, at college, school, technicalschool and university.
I learned the song “Who’s in the Garden?” when we took part in Christmas activities at mom’s workplace… I learned how to sing the song “Blow, Breezes” in the choir
while studying at the Russian-​Latvian high school and participating in the choir’s
performances… I know the poems of Rainis by heart… My colleague told me thatshe danced in a dance collective in the 1960s. They also danced Latvian folk dances…
Therefore, when they write and tell us that speaking Latvian was forbidden or impossible, it’s not true…
When our grandchildren from Russia, England and Latvia meet and cometogether—​they do not agree on which language they will communicate in: they justfind common language, communicate and play… Our children and grandchildren
speak several languages…
I believe that pitting ethnic groups against one another benefits our politicalleadership, for as long as we quarrel over language issues, they do good and not-​so-​good things. They live by the “divide and conquer” principle… One example is OIK(Obligātā iepirkuma komponentes ‘Compulsory Procurement Components’)… A disproportionate burden affects our companies’ ability to compete; citizens are forced
to pay inappropriate payments for electricity. Therefore, several companies do notsurvive!
We need to pay attention to the fact that for all of the talk about integration, what
is going on in life? Why is it that when Russian-​speaking children go to a Latvian kindergarten, only ONE of the six children remain in the group in a year’s time, waiting
to be given a place in the Russian kindergarten? Because the kindergarten teachers do
not like the fact that children cannot speak Latvian and must be trained… it's easier

10 The letter is originally written in Latvian; though it contained some spelling mistakes,
they do not hinder the reader’s understanding of the sentences or the idea of the
text. Translation in English is provided by the author. The text contains all originaltext’s highlights and punctuation.

228

Solvita Burr (née Pošeiko)

to force children out of the kindergarten… none of the parents argue, because if you
go to complain, what will the attitude be towards the children? And I have many such
examples for other themes.
Why do we live so poorly at this time? Because we are tackling issues that do notcontribute to economic growth… Why are so many people leaving Latvia?… Why
are taxes so high and incomes so low?… I am more in touch with such questions
than who speaks what language. We have a very good relationship with our Latvian
neighbors; we help each other… We have an advantage—​our people are familiar withdifferent languages, we could establish good economic relations with neighboring
Russia—​we’ve lost the latter, and the Latvian railway is an example of this…
A sign with a street name in three languages is not a violation. The name of thestreet is indicated on the sign in Latvian, in accordance with Liepāja City Council
binding regulations. The three languages used are our family’s languages… Why
doesn’t anyone complain about people speaking English in companies, or an advertisement only in English?
I hope I have answered your questions.

The letter expresses the owner’s positive linguistic attitude towards Latvian. She
believes that language knowledge and use is a prerequisite for successful communication between different ethnic groups. According to her, in Soviet times, it
was possible to practice Latvian activities and to speak Latvian. This fact, in her
opinion, is not considered in many cases.
Alongside language issues she actualizes some social problems too, including
integration policy and its arguable practices in educational settings. Only the lastparagraph directly justifies the number sign’s presence in the LL of Liepāja. She
states that the sign is not a legal violation, as it complies with city regulations. The
language choice is based on the languages used in her family. According to her,
the use of English in Latvian companies is insufficiently considered as a language
problem. She also highlights the use of English in an advertising, which she says
accepted by default. However, this ignores the fact that this type of language sign
belongs to the commercial sphere, which is regulated by different articles of the
Official Language Law and is not comparable to official signs.
The letter does not answer all the questions asked. It is implied that the sign will
not be removed, as the owner does not see it as a violation of language policy. She
does not comment on the use or necessity of other foreign languages (e.g., Lithuanian, Polish, Belarusian, Roma, Spanish, etc.) in Liepāja’s LL. Thus, owner does notdefend the rights of all minority or foreign language speakers, but rather advocates
for the right to use her “mother language.”

7 C onclusion
The language situation in LL, in particular in its official sphere, creates an understanding of which languages are necessary and can be used in public signs. To
some extent, it provides an example of what to do in similar cases. Therefore,

Nationalist ideology and individual interests229

language policy advocates, and controllers are actively following, the use of thestate language in LL, in particular on signs which contain information on national
culture and history. An important and powerful “player” in language regulationand interpretation, as well as in the application of regulatory acts, is the SLC, but
the example illustrated has shown that the SLC’s capacity (power) is not endless.
A language problem which is based on language use which does not conformto legal norms points to the language practice of a subset of society in private
and other domains, including some linguistic expectations; for example, that theirlanguage would be approved or accepted. Sociolinguistic language problems arise
when personal and collective interests do not align with the interests of the state
and when language users (micro level) and the state (macro level) have different
opinions about language choice in the public sphere in general as well as specifically on one or another type of sign.
Standardization is a hallmark of official signs in the LL. Their visual appearance
and content are largely fixed at local, regional and national levels, as presented in
the case of Liepāja. State and municipal institutions, companies owned by these
institutions, and self-​employed persons performing public functions may officiallyonly place texts in the state language, but in certain cases exceptions are allowed(e.g., language signs related to international tourism, public safety). House number
signs with street names placed by private individuals, however, are no exception
and must be only in the state language. Although street name signs have been in
more than one language in the Latvian LL during certain historical periods, bilingual or multilingual street names currently are only legally accepted in the case ofsymbolic signs placed as a supplement to official signs.
The chapter has examined the repeatedly identified, analyzed andmetalinguistically reviewed language problem: an official house number sign
containing language use non-​compliant with normative documents. Althoughmultilingual signs of LL’s official sphere are usually related to tourism indicated by
topic and co-​presence of English, this sign shows the multilingual language practice in a different domain.
This sociolinguistic language problem has been viewed holistically in the context of normative documents, as well as in the context of other sociolinguistic
and metalinguistic language problems (the gap between language knowledge anduse; language competition in the business environment; the incompatibility of the
Official Language Law with the Constitution) using mainly political and sociolinguistic arguments. The metalinguistic language problem, i.e., the compatibility of
two sections of the Official Language Law with the Constitution, has been resolved
through standard LM processes. However, the sociolinguistic language problem
remains unresolved. This means that the number sign with the street name inthree languages has not been replaced with a version compliant with the normative documents, remaining unchanged in linguistic practice (i.e., there is no official
number sign at the house on Rucava street with the street name in only Latvian).
In Latvia, the implementation of language adjustment is problematic; language
problem management is not legally codified. Analysis of normative documents,

230

Solvita Burr (née Pošeiko)studies of the functions, tasks and rights of responsible state institutions, as well asinterviews with the advocates and controllers of the language policy showed that
there is a lack of legal mechanism by which to achieve the desired sociolinguistic
result, that is, the implementation of adjustment for a language problem, whichin the context of LL would mean the placement of a new language sign. Consequently, it is possible that similar cases will occur if the practical outcome of thecase is discussed more widely in the public space and people begin to understandthe SLC’s inability to remove and replace a language sign or to oblige another state
institution to do so.
In our present case, the owner or better to say her layers, probably aware of
the limited ability of state/​municipal institutions to fully resolve the issue, has not
used the opportunity to place a symbolic multilingual number sign. This would
be a compromise between the two “players” in the case: the owner and the state(including SLC as a responsible authority). Therefore, it is now the case that themultilingual number sign is allowed by default. This situation (and possibly otherlater cases) arises due to the powerlessness of state institutions (SLC, municipal
police) to ensure the implementation of prescriptive norms given by law if theowner either does not comply with or chooses to ignore legal decisions. It can beconcluded that the sociolinguistic resolution in LL of a language problem does notnecessarily follow from the legal resolution of a language problem (in this case, thelegal decision that the number sign does not comply with normative documents
and the finding that no human rights were violated).

Acknowledgments
This chapter has been produced within the framework of the ERAF postdoctoral
research project “Linguistic Landscape of the City as a Multifaceted Resource in
the Baltic States: Linguists,’ Entrepreneurs’ and Students’ Perspectives” (No 1.1.1.2/​
VIAA/​1/​16/​011).

References
Administrative Territories (2008) Law on Administrative Territories and Populated
Areas. On WWW at https://​lik​umi.lv/​ta/​en/​en/​id/​315​654-​law-​on-​adm​inis​trat​
ive-​terr​itor​ies-​and-​popula​ted-​areas. Accessed December 20, 2021.
Administrative Violations Code (1984) Latvian Administrative Violations Code. On
WWW at https://​lik​umi.lv/​ta/​en/​en/​id/​89648-​latv​ian-​adm​inis​trat​ive-​vio​lati​ons-​
code. Accessed December 20, 2021.
Backhaus, P. (2007) Linguistic Landscapes: A Comparative Study of Urban Multilingualism in Tokyo. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Balode, L. (2008) Varas atspulgs Latvijas vietvārdos [Reflection of power in Latvian
place names]. Latvijas Universitātes raksti. Valodniecība. Latvistika, 7–​16.

Nationalist ideology and individual interests

231

Burr, S. (2021) Chances for and restrictions against publishing texts in foreign
language in the official sphere of the Latvian linguistic landscape. In A. Vershik(ed) Acta Humaniora: Multilingual Practices in the Baltic States. Tallinn: Tallinn
University Press, 56–​88.
Constitution (1922) The Constitution of the Republic of Latvia. On WWW at http://​www.sae​ima.lv/​en/​legi​slat​ion/​const​itut​ion. Accessed July 21, 2018.
Constitutional Court (2017a) Satversmes tiesas lieta Nr. 2017-​01-​01 [Constitutional
Court Case No 2017-​01-​01]. Satversmes tiesas dokumenti Satversmes tiesas
Kancelejā. On WWW at https://​www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/​cases/​?sea​rch[num​ber]=​
2017-​01-​01. Accessed October 30, 2021.
Constitutional Court (2017b) Satversmes tiesas lēmums par lietas izskatīšanu
[Decision of the Constitutional Court on the examination of the case]. On
WWW at http://​www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/​web/​vie​wer.html?file=​http://​www.satv.
tiesa.gov.lv/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2017/​01/​2017-​01-​01_​Lemu​ms_​i​eros​inas​ana-​
1.pdf#sea​rch. Accessed May 16, 2018.
Constitutional Court (2017c) Satversmes tiesas lēmums par tiesvedības izbeigšanu
lietā Nr. 2017-​01-​01 [Decision of the Constitutional Court on termination of legal
proceedings in Case No 2017-​01-​01]. On WWW at https://​www.satv.tiesa.gov.
lv/​web/​vie​wer.html?file=​/​wp-​cont​ent/​uplo​ads/​2017/​01/​2017-​01_​0​1_​Le​mums​_​izb​eigs​ana.pdf#sea​rch=​. Accessed October 18, 2021.
Convention (1997) Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental
freedoms. On WWW at https://​lik​umi.lv/​ta/​en/​sta​rpta​utis​kie-​lig​umi/​id/​649-​
con​vent​ion-​for-​the-​pro​tect​ion-​of-​human-​rig​hts-​and-​fund​amen​tal-​freed​oms.
Accessed May 16, 2018.
Dorofejevs, V. (2017) “Pretvalstiskās” plāksnītes lieta Liepājā [The case of the "anti-​
state" plaque in Liepaja]. On WWW at https://​sputni​knew​slv.com/​20170​118/​Val​
sts-​valo​das-​cen​trs-​ielas-​plaksn​ite-​Liep​aja-​Rjazan​ova-​3677​850.html. Accessed
December 20, 2021.
Dovalil, V. (2015) Language management theory as a basis for the dynamic concept
of EU language law. Current Issues in Language Planning 16 (4), 360–​377.
Fairbrother, L., Nekvapil, J. & Sloboda, M. (eds) (2018) The Language Management
Approach: A Focus on Research Methodology. Berlin: Peter Lang.
Gorter, D. (ed) (2006) Linguistic Landscape: A New Approach to Multilingualism.
Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Gorter, D., Marten, H. F. & Van Mensel, L. (eds) (2012) Minority Languages in the
Linguistic Landscape. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jernudd, B. H. & Neustupný, J. V. (1987) Language planning: For whom? Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Language Planning. Québec: Les Presses
de L’Université Laval, 69–​84.
Lanstýak, I. (2014) On the process of language problem management. Slovo aslovesnost 75 (4), 325–​351.

232

Solvita Burr (née Pošeiko)Lanstýak, I. (2018) On the strategies of managing language problems. In
L. Fairbrother, J. Nekvapil, M. Sloboda (eds) The Language Management Approach: A Focus on Research Methodology. Berlin: Peter Lang, 67–​97.
Liepāja’s Rule 2 (2009) Liepājas noteikumi 2. Ēku numurzīmju, ielu vai laukumu
nosaukumu norāžu izvietošanas kārtība Liepājā [Liepaja’s Rule 2: Procedure
for the Placement of Building Number Plates, Street or Square Name Signs in
Liepaja]. On WWW at https://​lik​umi.lv/​ta/​id/​188​335-​eku-​num​urzi​mju-​ielu-​
vai-​lauk​umu-​nosauk​umu-​nor​azu-​izvie​tosa​nas-​kart​iba-​liep​aja. Accessed May
16, 2018.
Ločmele, G. (2015) Latviešu valodas ilgtspēja, kvalitāte un konkurētspēja reklāmā[Sustainability, quality and competitiveness of the Latvian language in advertising]. Scriptus Magnus 2, 61–​83.
Marten, H. F. (2010) Linguistic landscapeunder strict state language policy: Reversing
the Soviet legacy in a regional centre in Latvia. In E. Shohamy, E. Ben-​Rafael& M. Barni (eds) Linguistic Landscape in the City. Bristol: Multilingual Matters,
115–​132.
Minority convention (2005) Framework convention for the protection of national
minorities. On WWW at https://​lik​umi.lv/​doc.php?id=​109​252. Accessed May
16, 2018.
Nekvapil, J. (2012) Some thoughts on “noting” in Language Management Theory
and beyond. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 22 (2), 160–​173.
Nekvapil, J. (2016) Language Management Theory as one approach in Language
Policy and Planning. Current Issues in Language Planning 17 (1), 11–​22.
NeoGeo (2012) Tautas nobalsošanas rezultātu karte [National referendum resultsmap]. On WWW at http://​neo​geo.lv/​?p=​12864. Accessed June 14, 2018.
Official Language Law (1999) Official Language Law. On WWW at https://​lik​umi.
lv/​ta/​en/​en/​id/​14740-​offic​ial-​langu​age-​law. Accessed June 12, 2018.
Pošeiko, S. (2015a) Valodas un to funkcionalitāte pilsētu publiskajā telpā: Baltijas
valstu lingvistiskā ainava [Languages and their Functionality in Urban Public
Space: The Linguistic Landscape of the Baltic States]. Doctoral thesis in Latvian.
Rīga: LU.
Pošeiko, S. (2015b) The Latvian language in the linguistic landscape of Daugavpils(the middle of the 19th century –​today). The Journal of Education, Culture, andSociety 2, 320–​336.
Pošeiko, S. (2018) Rīgas centra lingvistiskās ainavas izkārtnes 20. gs. pirmajā pusē
[Linguistic landscape of the center of Riga in the first half of the 20th century].
In I. Vītola (ed) Dzīves lingvistika: veltījumkrājums profesoram Jānim Valdmanim[Linguistics of Life: A Festschrift in Honour of Jānis Valdmanis]. Rīga: LU
Akadēmiskais apgāds, 145–​171.

Nationalist ideology and individual interests

233

Preamble (1992) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Preamble.
https://​lik​umi.lv/​ta/​en/​sta​rpta​utis​kie-​lig​umi/​id/​705-​intern​atio​nal-​coven​ant-​on-​civil-​and-​politi​cal-​rig​hts. Accessed May 16, 2018.
Puzey, G. (2012) Two-​way traffic: How linguistic landscapes reflect and influence
the politics of language. In D. Gorter, H. F. Marten & L. V. Mensel (eds) Minority
Languages in the Linguistic Landscape. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 127–​147.
Ragačevičs, V. & Zilgalve, E. (2015) Lekcija par valodu reklāmā „Pielāgo valodu!“[Lecture about language in advertisements “Adapt the language!”]. On WWW
at https://​www.yout​ube.com/​watch?v=​4IwNL-​0XILQ. Accessed July 12, 2018.
Regulations No. 50 (2012) Regulations Regarding Geographical Names Information.
On WWW at https://​lik​umi.lv/​ta/​en/​en/​id/​243​610-​regu​lati​ons-​regard​ing-​geogr​
aphi​cal-​names-​info​rmat​ion. Accessed December 20, 2021.
Regulations No. 130 (2005) Regulations regarding Use of Languages in Information.
On WWW at Cab._​Reg._​No._​130_​-​_​Use_​of_​Languages_​in_​Information.doc(live.com) Accessed December 20, 2021.
Shohamy, E. & Gorter, D. (eds) (2009) Linguistic Landscape: Expanding the Scenery.
New York: Routledge.
SLC (2017) Valsts valodas centrs: Par mums [State Language Center: About us]. On
WWW at http://​vvc.gov.lv/​index.php?route=​prod​uct/​categ​ory&path=​65_​169.
Accessed July 20, 2018.
Sloboda, M. (2009) A language management approach to language maintenanceand shift: A study from post-​Soviet Belarus. In J. Nekvapil & T. Sherman (eds)
Language Management in Contact Situations: Perspectives from Three Continents.
Frankfurt on the Main: Peter Lang, 15–​47.
Vienna Convention (1969) Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. On WWW
at https://​legal.un.org/​ilc/​texts/​inst​rume​nts/​engl​ish/​conv​enti​ons/​1_​1_​1​969.pdf.
Accessed December 20, 2021.

Part III
Foreign language policies, teaching andlearning, and use

Lisa Fairbrother

Interests and power in English education
policy in Japan: A focus on the high school‘Teaching/​Learning English in English’ policy
Abstract Focusing on the ‘Teaching/​Learning English in English’ policy for high schools,
this chapter examines how interests and power influence the language management ofEnglish language education policy in Japan. By investigating the language management
processes occurring at the different stages of the formulation, evaluation, implementation, and post-​implementation of the policy, it reveals the broad range of pedagogical,
economic, and political interests involved and the power relations of agents and actors
from the national level right down to the individual classroom. In practice, the policy’s
effectiveness is questioned by some, and it is argued that the government’s failure toensure the full implementation of the policy enables it to be avoided or resisted. Additionally, there are doubts whether the policy will be improved in the future, as it isunclear whether the government is paying attention to the concerns of teachers andstudents post-​implementation.
Keywords Japanese English education policy, the policy-​making process, pre-​and post-​
implementation evaluations, power, interests, norms

1 I ntroduction
The state of English language education in Japan has been the focus of debate for anumber of decades. Although English is taught as a compulsory subject during thesix years of junior and senior high school, the English language teaching system inschools has been criticized for its emphasis on reading skills over speaking and listening skills (Koike 1978; Barker 2018), students’ lack of conversation skills (Honna
1995; Fukunaga 2016), a lack of adequate teacher training and ineffective teachingmaterials (Browne & Wada 1998; Barker 2018), a lack of in-​service training opportunities (Fukunaga 2016), a lack of reform in the university entrance exam system(LoCastro 1996; Barker 2018), and an emphasis on private-​sector examinations,such as the Test of English for International Communication (TOEIC), which focus
heavily on grammatical knowledge (Seargeant 2009).
The Japanese government has implemented a number of policy initiatives sincethe 1980s to try to improve the general state of English language education inschools. For example, the Japan Exchange and Teaching (JET) Programme was
set up to hire English-​speaking teaching assistants, English Oral Communication classes were introduced to the high school curriculum, and more money wasprovided for teacher training. However, despite these changes, it seems that no238

Lisa Fairbrothergreat progress has been made in the improvement of the communicative English
language skills of the population as a whole (Keidanren 2000; Barker 2018). Thissuggests that there is a gap between language education policy and the subsequent
learning outcomes from schools and individual classrooms. Aspinall (2013) evengoes so far as to describe the Japanese government’s recent English policies asmere “policy window-​dressing.”
This situation clearly raises a number of questions for those interested in bothlanguage education and language policy and planning (LPP). Despite the considerable number of policy initiatives, why are the English skills, particularly speaking
skills, of the Japanese population still considered inadequate by both educators andpolicy influencers (Seargeant 2009; Barker 2018)? If school students’ English proficiency is not improving, this suggests that there must be some issues relating to
the government’s policies. However, do the problems lie in the policy itself or are
they more related to its implementation, or rather lack of implementation?
Although several researchers have focused on problems relating to English education policy in Japan and policies introduced to improve it (Honna 1995; Seargeant2009), little research has focused on the processes underlying policy development
and tried to trace it to its ultimate implementation (Bouchard 2017). One exception
is Fukunaga’s (2016) study of the Japanese New Course of Study (MEXT 2009a),which examined the development of the policy through to its implementation at
both the institutional and individual teacher level. Fukunaga’s research highlights
the need to investigate more thoroughly the issues of who determines what the
problems are, why and how they should be removed and how, or if, strategies
designed to remove those problems are actually being implemented. In this sense,
language management theory (LMT) (Jernudd & Neustupný 1987) is a usefulframework for tracing the processes underlying language policy, from the noting
and evaluation of deviations, to the design of adjustment plans and their implementation.
Of course, language policy is never created and implemented in a vacuum; itis always subject to the interests and power relations of the people involved. According to Neustupný’s (2002: 4) definition, “Interests are aspirations for a certain
state of affairs that is favorable to the subject. Power operates on interests. Power
is the capacity to implement one’s interests.” Consequently, power can take many
forms and rather than being seen as a monolithic entity, it “needs to be understood in relation to other elements in a complex web of force relations” (Kubota
2009: 244). Researchers working with LMT have shown how interests can affectthe evaluation of deviations (Son 2017) and how power relations can affect who isable to implement adjustments to remove language problems (Fairbrother 2015a,
2015b, 2018). Therefore, in order to fully understand why problems occur in theformulation and implementation of language education policy, it is also important
to examine how interests and power relations affect these processes.
This chapter will thus attempt to examine the interests and power underlying
the language management of English language education policy in Japan, witha particular focus on the policy that Yamada (2010) has termed the ‘Teaching/​

Interests and power in English education policy

239

Learning English in English’ policy, introduced in Japanese high schools from2013. This policy is of particular interest because although it advocates that highschool English classes should be conducted through the medium of English, manyhigh school graduates, including some of the current author’s own students, claimthat this was never actually implemented in their schools. This chapter, therefore,
aims to investigate the language management processes occurring at the different
stages of the formulation and implementation of the policy, and the interests andpower dynamics reflected at each stage, in an attempt to understand why thepolicy is considered by some to be ineffective, or at least not fully implemented.

2 P
 roblems associated with English language educationand policy in Japan
The problems with Japanese English language education have been pointed out by
numerous researchers and educators since the 1970s (Seargeant 2009). As Honna(1995: 57) explains:
People have not developed proficiency in English as a language for international communication […]. Many government, industrial and educational leaders expressed concern and proposed reforms. However, no significant change has been witnessed.

Research on English education policy in Japanese schools has shown that, in practice, there is still an emphasis placed on translation and sentence-​level reading,which is commonly blamed on the importance given to passing Japanese university entrance examinations (LoCastro 1996; Barker 2018), which have traditionallyplaced a heavy focus on being able to answer tricky multiple-​choice questions,
without much attention given to the production of language. Traditionally,
English classes were taught through the medium of Japanese, much like a classicallanguage such as Latin might be taught in other parts of the world, and Aspinall(2013) argues that English is still taught like this in many schools. Subsequently,
as the majority of teachers learned English in this way, their English communicative proficiency has often been regarded as low. This situation has resulted inlittle emphasis being placed on speaking or broader communication skills (Honna
1995). Additionally, the general tendency to focus on examinations has led to avery lucrative private preparatory school industry and an even more lucrative
homegrown English language testing industry, including the TOEIC and the Test
in Practical English Proficiency (EIKEN) examinations. English language education
is clearly big business in Japan, but this then begs the question of why Japanesepeople in general are considered to have low English skills despite all this investment. Indeed, Fukunaga (2016: 21) points out the “mismatch between the abundantresources available for English education and the unsuccessful outcomes.”
A number of scholars have claimed that part of the problem is ideologically andpolitically motivated, with some even arguing that the Japanese government does
not actually want to improve the population’s foreign language skills (Hayes 1979;

240

Lisa FairbrotherBefu 1983; Aspinall 2013). These arguments relate to the ideological position often
referred to as nihonjinron, that is, the ‘discourses of Japaneseness’ (Ko 2010), which
advocates the uniqueness and separateness of Japan and the Japanese people versus
the Other. Indeed, as Hashimoto (2013: 30) argues, “English remains the Other inJapan.” A number of scholars have further argued that ineptitude in English is
actually an intentional decision. For example, Hayes (1979: 372) argues that:
It may very well be that the Japanese do not want to learn English or, for that matter,any foreign language, as the bilingual and those having spent any time abroad are‘deviant’ in the Japanese eye, not to be entirely trusted […], [they] may be ‘contaminated’ and no longer ‘pure’ Japanese.

The anthropologist Harumi Befu (1983: 242) has also argued that “[i]‌t is as if ineptitude of foreign language instruction and learning is maintained (though needlessto say, unconsciously) for the very purpose of convincing millions of Japaneseof their separateness from foreigners.” Over thirty years later Barker (2018: 145)
argues that “there is still a strong prejudice against the idea of Japanese peopleusing English with each other,” stemming from what he sees as traditional views ofEnglish as “the language of the enemy.”
Nihonjinron has also been seen to influence the goals of English language
education in Japan. Liddicoat’s (2013) analysis of Japanese policy documents
demonstrates that the primary goal of teaching English is not to learn about othercultures and people but, rather, “to foster Japanese identity” (54) and to help Japanbe correctly understood by people from other countries:
Intercultural relationships therefore are ones in which the Japanese express theirperspectives through the medium of English. Thus, foreign language learning is seen
as a vehicle for the expression of Japaneseness through other languages rather thanas a way of mediating between Japanese and other perspectives. (Liddicoat 2013: 57)

As Liddicoat’s comparison of foreign language learning policies around the world
demonstrates, this is one way in which the Japanese government’s approach toforeign language education differs from that of other countries. On the other hand,
Bouchard (2017: 175) warns us also not to overlook the emphasis on “international cooperation” and “international understanding” often mentioned in policy
documents, and not to forget the “complex (if not contradictory) nature of policy
discourse.”
A number of policies and initiatives have been implemented over the years
in an attempt to improve the general standards of English education in Japan.
For example, the JET Programme was founded in 1987 “with the purpose ofincreasing mutual understanding between the people of Japan and the people ofother nations” and promoting “internationalization in Japan’s local communities
by helping to improve foreign language education and developing international
exchange at the community level” (CLAIR 2015). As part of this program, Assistant Language Teachers were recruited from overseas to teach at junior and seniorhigh schools around Japan. Then, from 1989, English Oral Communication classes,

Interests and power in English education policy

241

focusing on communicative skills, became mandatory in high schools. The Action
Plan to Cultivate “Japanese with English Abilities” (MEXT 2003) was announced in
2003. It outlined a series of goals to be achieved by 2008, including the establishment of sixteen (later increased to fifty) specialized ‘Super English Language HighSchools,’1 targets for the number of high school students studying abroad, testscore requirements for English teachers, an increase in the number of AssistantLanguage Teachers, the introduction of English conversation activities in elementary schools, and goals for the improvement of English classes in junior and seniorhigh schools, including the specification that the “majority of an English class will
be conducted in English and many activities where students can communicate inEnglish will be introduced.” Despite these reforms, it has been difficult to argue
that these measures have actually brought about wide-​reaching change. At least interms of international English test scores, in 2010 Japan’s Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) scores were still very low, ranking 135th out of 163 countries in total, and 27th within Asia (ETS 2011). Although Japan’s TOEFL ranking
within Asia had moved up from the second lowest place in 2003, it was still the
4th lowest ranked in 2010, surpassing only Cambodia, Laos, and Tajikistan. Thereappears to be a gap, therefore, between policy initiatives and the development ofstudents’ actual proficiency.
Indeed, despite the best intentions of governments and policy makers, research
has shown that language education policy is often not implemented as intended.
As Kaplan and Baldauf (1997: 150) argued, “implementation requires much morethan a set of top-​down decisions,” including the proper allocation of adequate resources. Chua (2008: 195) has also pointed out the necessity of the inclusion of
micro-​level planning, arguing that “macro language planning needs micro language
planning in individual schools if it is to be effectively implemented.” Kaplan andBaldauf (1997) also pointed out the importance of the establishment of strong evaluation mechanisms to check the effectiveness of the policy and to drive future
modifications. Therefore, to further understand this complex situation, it is vital toinvestigate the influence of different actors at each stage of the policy process andto see how different interests manifest themselves and the power dynamics that
underlie each stage.

1

From 2002 until 2010 a number of high schools were designated by the Japanese
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology as ‘Super English
Language High Schools’ with the aim of enabling Japanese high school students tobe able to communicate more effectively in English. The designated schools received
special funding over a three-​year period in order to research ways to provide more
opportunities for students to communicate in English, including curriculum development, and increasing the number of foreign teachers and chances to study overseas.

242

Lisa Fairbrother3 R esearch on language management and language
education policy
It is often challenging to trace the interplay of different agents on the government level of policy development with the institutional and discourse level ofactual policy implementation. It is also sometimes difficult to understand why disparities occur between macro-​level policy and its implementation on the microlevel. LMT has proven to be a useful framework for investigating the relationshipbetween these different levels (Nekvapil & Nekula 2006) and also to help reveal
where certain conceptualizations of language problems come from. LMT is particularly suited to this type of research because the theory looks at all types oflanguage problems as a circular process connecting different levels, referred toas the “language management cycle” (Nekvapil 2009) or the “micro-​macro management cycle” (Kimura 2020). Indeed, one of the key tenets of the theory is that
language problems should not be considered solved until all problems have been
removed from discourse:
Any act of language planning should start with the consideration of language
problems as they appear in discourse, and the planning process should not be considered complete until the removal of the problems is implemented in discourse.
(Neustupný 1994: 50)

Because of the theoretical strengths of the framework, a number of scholars
have analyzed foreign and second language education policy through the lens of
LMT. One area of focus has been the language education policies of universities,
highlighting the deviations noted by different actors and the successes and limitations of different adjustments. For example, Marriott (2004, 2013a, 2013b) examined the institutional policies of an Australian university relating to the support
provided for incoming international students. She found that although there werepolicies in place to support students’ academic writing in English, little attention
was paid to differences in academic practices and genres. Her research further
revealed that there was resistance from the university administration to the introduction of a coherent independent language policy. Rudwick (2018) also applied
the LMT framework to her investigation of the effects of a policy to make a university in South Africa bilingual in Zulu and English. Although many students werestrongly in favor of the introduction of Zulu-​medium education from an ideological position, in reality students opted for courses taught in English, due to theirperceptions of the importance of this language for their future careers. Thus, there
was a clear gap between the evaluation of the policy and the actual adjustmentsthat individuals made to their choice of language.
Other studies have applied the LMT framework to the development of university language education programs. For example, Fan (2008, 2009) used thelanguage management process as the basis for the development of a university
Japanese language program for overseas students, highlighting the lack of nationalguidelines for the teaching of Japanese as a foreign/​second language in Japan. Ali,Interests and power in English education policy

243

Baldauf, Shariff, and Manan (2018) also applied LMT to their development of aninterview method to examine how students, lecturers, and administrators managed the implementation of a university English-​medium-​of-​instruction engineering program in Malaysia.
However, to date very little research has been conducted on the language management processes involved in the development of national-​level language education policy through to its implementation on the institutional and micro levels,
including the development and implementation of language education policy inschools. One exception is Dovalil’s (2018) study of foreign language education
policy in the Czech Republic, where he investigated the factors that determine
whether students will choose to learn English or German. He found that despite
the economic opportunities for German speakers in the Czech Republic, there
seems to be a stronger preference for English education rather than German, stemming from national-​level policy, ideologies presented by certain sections of themedia, institutional constraints, and parents’ and students’ beliefs.
As these past studies illustrate, because of its systematic focus on “behavior
toward language” (Fishman 1972: 1), its processual model that looks at not only the
products of management but the often-​neglected processes leading up to it, and its
emphasis on the connection between the macro and micro, LMT is clearly a usefulframework for examining the complex processes underlying the development andimplementation of language education policy. However, no studies so far have applied LMT to the analysis of English education policy in Japan, and in particular
the recent high school policy of ‘Teaching/​Learning English in English.’ Additionally, no previous studies have specifically addressed the influence of interests andpower at each stage of policy development and implementation, from the perspective of different actors and agents at various levels of society. This chapter aims
to fill that gap by focusing primarily on how interests and power are reflected
through each stage of the development and implementation of the ‘Teaching/​
Learning English in English’ policy. In particular, it will examine why this policy
was developed, what interests underlie the decision-​making processes leading up
to its formulation, and how interests and power relations ultimately influence theimplementation, or lack of implementation, of the policy.

4 M ethod
The aim of this study is to examine the language management processes involvedin the development of the ‘Teaching/​Learning English in English’ policy, and toinvestigate how interests and power are reflected in these processes. Towards thisaim, the study focuses on the following three research questions:
1.	 What deviations triggered the formation of this policy and, in particular, who
noted and evaluated them?
2.	 How far is the policy implemented or not? And, what are the reasons for this?
3.	 How has the policy been evaluated?

244

Lisa FairbrotherIn order to answer these questions a number of data sources were used. Firstly,
publicly available documents produced in English and Japanese by English education policy-​making/​-i​nfluencing agencies in Japan were analyzed.2 In particular,
documents produced by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), The Japan Business Federation (Keidanren), and thePrime Minister’s Commission on Japan’s Goals in the 21st Century were examinedto pinpoint the agents involved in the policy-​making process at different levels, thereasons given for education policy changes, and the official assessment of thosepolicies after implementation. Secondly, academic studies published in relation
to the implementation of the ‘Teaching/​Learning English in English’ policy werereviewed to investigate how far independent researchers believe the policy has
been implemented and to pinpoint any subsequent problems. Finally, a semi-​structured interview was conducted with Professor X, one of the recent members of theJapanese government’s English Education Expert Advisory Committee (英語教
育の在り方に関する有識者会議 Eigokyōiku no arikata ni kansuru yūshikisha
kaigi) that currently formulates English education policy, to find out how thecommittees function and how the decision-​making process is actually carried out.
Professor X is a university professor specializing in English language educationand has been invited by MEXT to work on English education policy on a numberof occasions.
The LMT framework was applied to each stage of the policy-​making and implementation process, with particular attention paid to the noting and evaluationof deviations and their underlying norms and expectations, and the adjustments
designed and implemented to remove those deviations. By looking at the language
management processes undertaken on different levels of the policy formulationand implementation, the following sections will reveal how interests and power
manifest themselves at each stage of the process.

5 D eviations noted by policy makers regarding English
language education in Japan
Documents published by politicians and government agencies, which outline current problems and future goals often reveal the triggers or justifications for policychanges. The same is true for language education policy in Japan. There are two
documents in particular that are frequently cited by researchers as the catalysts
for the recent changes in education policy: The Prime Minister’s Commission on
Japan’s Goals in the 21st Century report entitled The Frontier within: Individual
Empowerment and Better Governance in the New Millennium (The Prime Minister’sCommission 2000) and the Japan Business Federation’s report entitled グロー
バル化時代の人材育成について (Development of Human Resources in the Age
2

In this chapter, I refer to the wording and content of the official English versions of
the documents when available.

Interests and power in English education policy

245

of Globalization, Keidanren 2000).3 The report of the Prime Minister’s Commission on Japan’s Goals in the 21st Century, based on a 1999 meeting with Japanesebusiness leaders, emphasizes the necessity of developing Japanese citizens’ “global
literacy,” defined as “the ability to access and converse with the rest of the world,
meaning that they can freely and immediately obtain information, understand it,
and express their own ideas clearly” (The Prime Minister’s Commission 2000: 4).
The document goes on to explain the clear political motivations behind this policy,
namely, thatmastery of global literacy by the people of a country will determine whether thatcountry’s power in the international politics of the twenty-​first century will wax orwane—​and is also likely to determine whether the country rises or falls. Countries
whose standard of global literacy is low will not attract superior human resources.
(The Prime Minister’s Commission 2000: 4)

Therefore, it is clear that, at least from the point of view of the Prime Minister’sCommission, the concept of global literacy is closely related to Japan’s future position in international politics. The document then goes on to outline how English isa central component of this global literacy:
The basic components of this new literacy are the mastery of information-​technology
tools, such as computers and the Internet, and the mastery of English as the international lingua franca. In addition to these basics, communication skills […] will also be
important. (The Prime Minister’s Commission 2000: 4)

The document further illustrates the deviations that politicians noted regarding
English language ability in particular:
Today’s Japanese are lacking in these basic skills. Their English-​language abilities asmeasured by their TOEFL scores in 1998 were the lowest in Asia. The Japanese themselves are painfully aware of the inadequacy of their communication skills. Though
they would like to convey their country’s good points and its real situation to the restof the world, many of them feel unable to do so adequately. (The Prime Minister’sCommission 2000: 4)

The noting and negative evaluation of a number of deviations is revealed in thesebrief excerpts. Firstly, the report claims that Japanese are deficient in these skills,
using the term “lacking.” Japan’s low TOEFL scores, particularly in comparison
with other Asian countries, are used to corroborate this claim. The report also
evaluates average Japanese communication skills as “inadequate” and clearly
posits the role of English as the means to convey Japan’s “good points” to the outside world.

3

I quote the first document from the official English version, the second from theJapanese version.

246

Lisa Fairbrother

The report published by the Japan Business Federation (Keidanren 2000) in thesame year is based on a 1999 survey of Japanese companies, looking into theircurrent needs. The Japan Business Federation is an independent body of businesspeople which has considerable influence on Japanese government policy (Mouer &Kawanishi 2005). Although they do not take part in the final policy decisions, they
do prepare extensive policy suggestions and these reports are usually taken very
seriously by the government and taken up extensively by the media.
The Japan Business Federation report (Keidanren 2000) found that there was ageneral lack of English skills in the workforce necessary to participate in international meetings and business. They also noted that companies have to spend a lotof time and money on English education necessary for work because English education in schools and universities focuses primarily on reading and writing, while
speaking and listening skills are not improving. Again, there is reportedly “a lack”
of general English skills (英語力の不足 eigoryoku no busoku) in the workforce,
which are needed to participate in international business. They also criticize theJapanese education system, which does not adequately develop students’ speaking
and listening skills and ends up costing companies dearly in time and resources
because they are the ones who have to then pay for proper language training fortheir employees.
Both the Prime Minister’s Commission and the Japan Business Federationsuggested a number of adjustment plans in order to remove the deviations thatthey highlighted in their respective reports. First, the report of the Prime Minister’sCommission (2000) sets out its overall goal as making sure that “all Japaneseacquire a working knowledge of English—​not simply as a foreign language but as
the international lingua franca […] by the time they take their place in society as
adults.” In order to do this within the context of education, it suggests organizingclasses based on competency rather than age, providing more teacher training andincreasing the number of foreign teachers, although no specifics are provided.
The recommended adjustments of the Japan Business Federation (2000) alsoemphasize the importance of more teacher training to improve teachers’ English
abilities (英語力 eigoryoku) and educational techniques (教育技術 kyōiku gijutsu),
and the use of TOEFL and TOEIC standardized test scores to measure teachers’
English proficiency. In addition, they suggested starting English language education from elementary school,4 with a focus on listening, on teaching practicalEnglish (particularly speaking skills) at all levels of education, and hiring more
English native-​speaker teachers.

4

English activities were introduced in elementary schools from 2002 and English
instruction became compulsory from the 5th grade in 2011.

Interests and power in English education policy

247

6 U
 nderlying norms and interests influencing the policy
makers and influencers
A simple way to reveal the interests of policy makers and politicians is to examine
their noted deviations and recommendations for adjustments in order to pinpoint
the norms or expectations that are underlying them. Although Spolsky (2006: 97)
warns us that the “stated” problem or motivation is sometimes different from the“most important” motivation behind a policy, it is at least possible to see the ideal
situation that particular agents are publicly envisioning and the interests that those
ideals represent. Additionally, sometimes one norm can be seen to reflect morethan one single interest. In the examples presented here, the underlying norms or
expectations are represented in italics.
First, when the Prime Minister’s Commission’s report (2000) claims that“[t]‌oday’s Japanese are lacking in these basic [English] skills,” the expectationis that Japanese people should have basic English skills, which can be seen as apedagogical interest, regardless of how these skills are defined. Similarly, when
the report mentions “the inadequacy of their communication skills,” the underlying expectation is that Japanese people should have adequate communication
skills, which can also be construed as a pedagogical interest. In addition, when
the Japan Business Federation report (Keidanren 2000) points out that Japanesepeople’s “English conversation skills are not improving” because of the education
system’s over-​emphasis on reading and writing, the underlying expectation is that
the Japanese workforce should have practical English conversation skills and the education system should be responsible for developing this.
Expectations regarding the proficiency of teachers could also be seen. For
example, both the Prime Minister’s Commission (2000) and the Japan Business
Federation (Keidanren 2000) emphasize the necessity of providing more teacher
training, including for in-​service teachers. The expectation here appears to be that
if teachers are trained better in both their English and teaching skills, then students’proficiency levels will improve. However, at the same time both bodies call for thehiring of non-​Japanese teachers. The underlying expectation here seems to be thathaving more foreign teachers (Prime Minister’s Commission) or more native-​speakerteachers (Japan Business Federation) will improve Japanese students’ English proficiency. Scholars researching native-​speakerism, however, have argued that thisfavoring of native-​speaker teachers actually covers up the assumption that foreign/​
native-​speaker teachers are better than local teachers (Holliday 2006). This suggestion
could, however, be seen as ironic because native-​speaker teaching assistants, manywith teaching credentials in their home countries, have been actively recruited aspart of the JET Programme and its forebears since the 1980s without, according tothese documents, any significant improvements in the ability of Japanese students
to use English for communication purposes.
There are other pedagogical interests reflected in the recommendations thatare still open to some debate in the Japanese academic community. For example,
the Japan Business Federation’s (Keidanren 2000) call for English education to248

Lisa Fairbrothercommence from the elementary level reveals the assumption that Japanese learners
need to start learning English at elementary school in order to become proficient in
the language. Furthermore, their call for the teaching of more practical English
reveals the assumption that Japanese students need to learn practical English skills
in order to become proficient in English. On the other hand, the Prime Minister’sCommission’s (2000) recommendation to place students in classes with students ofa similar ability, rather than students of the same age, points to another perceived
deficiency in the current English language education system, namely that Japanese
students’ English proficiency will not improve unless their classes are streamed according to ability. However, it should be noted that no empirical research is cited in
the reports to corroborate any of these pedagogical assumptions.
When the report of the Prime Minister’s Commission (2000) mentions thatJapanese “English-​language abilities as measured by their TOEFL scores in 1998
were the lowest in Asia,” the underlying expectation is that Japanese people shouldhave higher TOEFL scores, especially in comparison with other Asian countries. Whileon the one hand, this can be seen as a pedagogical interest, the emphasis on Japan’s
relation to other Asian countries implies that this interest also contains politicalundertones. Similarly, when the report claims that “[t]‌hough they would like toconvey their country’s good points and its real situation to the rest of the world,many of them feel unable to do so adequately,” the underlying expectation is thatJapanese people should have good enough English skills to be able to convey theircountry’s good points and its real situation to the rest of the world. Again, although
this could be explained as a pedagogical interest, using English to convey only
selective, positive attributes of one’s country to the outside world could also beseen to reflect political interests.
Other excerpts from the public documents produced by policy makers reveal
much clearer political and economic interests. For example, when the report of
the Prime Minister’s Commission (2000) claims that “mastery of global literacy by
the people of a country will determine whether that country’s power in the international politics of the twenty-​first century will wax or wane—​and is also likely
to determine whether the country rises or falls,” this reveals an explicit politicalinterest. Namely, global literacy, including English skills, is perceived as a factor thatcan determine a country’s position within the international political hierarchy and its
long-​term success or failure in comparison with the international community.
Other political interests seem to be intertwined with economic interests. For
example, when the report of the Prime Minister’s Commission (2000) claims
that “[c]‌ountries whose standard of global literacy is low will not attract superior human resources,” the underlying expectation here is that a country needs
a high level of global literacy (i.e., strong English and IT skills) to attract “superior
human resources.” This reveals both political and economic interests: politicians
want Japan to be a country with a high international reputation and one that can
attract people with the best skills from overseas to work in Japan and contribute to
the Japanese economy. Similarly, when the Japan Business Federation (Keidanren
2000) points out that there is a lack of workers with high enough English skills

Interests and power in English education policy249

to be able to participate in international business and international meetings, theunderlying expectation is that Japanese workers should have good enough English
skills to be able to participate in international business and meetings. In this way, theideal Japanese worker is one who can use their English for the economic and political interests of the country. Finally, when the Japan Business Federation blames
the Japanese education system for the inadequate English skills of its workers,
resulting in the financial burden of their language training being placed on individual companies, a clear economic interest can be seen. In other words, the Japan
Business Federation’s expectation is that Japanese companies should not have tobear the financial burden of paying for employees’ English education.
These examples demonstrate the variety of interests that can be found in public
discourse on English education policy in Japan. As well as a repetition of the pedagogical interests cited in the research literature, the documents produced by thesepolitical and economic agencies also reveal economic and financial interests aswell as political and nationalistic aspirations underlying the conceptualization of
the problems in English education. Clearly, not only educators and specialists inpedagogy, but also politicians and business people play a role in the conceptualization of language problems and the subsequent policies that derive from the noting
and evaluation of these deviations. Considering the power differentials of thesedifferent agents in Japanese society, it is difficult to presume that all interests will
be pursued equally.

7 I nterests and power in the actual policy-​making process
The first mention of the plan to have high school English classes conducted in
English was in the Action Plan to Cultivate “Japanese with English Abilities” (MEXT
2003), which stated the goal that English should be used in the majority of classtime. This then became an official requirement when the ‘Teaching/​Learning
English in English’ policy for high schools in Japan was announced in March 2009,as part of the New Course of Study (高等学校学習指導要領 Kōtōgakkō Gakushū
Shidō Yōryō) (MEXT 2009a), which is the main education policy document produced by MEXT, revised every ten years in general. In this document, the implementation of the new policy was set to commence four years later, in April 2013.
The document makes clear references to the promotion of communication skills in
English, which was a key concern raised in both the report of the Prime Minister’sCommission (2000) and the Japan Business Federation (Keidanren 2000) mentioned
in the previous sections. The New Course of Study posits an overall goal “to develop
students’ communicative abilities” (MEXT 2009a: 87) and requires that:[…] 生徒が英語に触れる機会を充実するとともに、授業を実際のコミュニケーションの場面とするため、授業は英語で行うことを基本とする。その際、生徒の理解の程度に応じた英語を用いるよう十分は配慮するものとする。
(MEXT 2009a: 92)

250

Lisa Fairbrother[[…] classes, in principle, should be conducted in English in order to enhance theopportunities for students to be exposed to English, transforming classes into realcommunication scenes. Consideration should be given to use English in accordancewith the students’ level of comprehension.]

Thus, conducting classes through the medium of English is seen as a means to turnclassrooms into “real communication scenes” in order to develop students’ communicative skills in English.
However, a proviso regarding the use of Japanese was included in the New
Course of Study Guide (高等学校学習指導要領解説 Kōtōgakkō Gakushū Shidō
Yōryō Kaisetsu), published in December 2009:「授業は英語で行うことを基本とする」こととは、教師が授業を英語で行うとともに、生徒も授業の中でできるだけ多く英語を使用することにより、英語による言語活動を行うことを授業の中心とすることである。[…] しかし、授業のすべてを必ず英語で行わなければならないということを意味するものではない。[…] 必要に応じて、日本語を交えて授業を行うことも考えられるものである。 (MEXT 2009b: 43–​44)[“Classes, in principle, should be conducted in English” means that teachers will conduct their classes in English and students will use as much English as possible inclass, so that language activities conducted in English will be the central focus of theclass. […] However, this does not mean that all the class will have to be conducted
in English. […] [W]‌hen necessary, it is possible to conduct classes including someJapanese.]

It is clear that some use of Japanese will be permitted in class but the documents
published by MEXT do not go into detail concerning the extent or function ofJapanese use that they regard to be permissible.
Yet, in order to fully understand the influence of interests and power in theformulation of language education policy, it is important not only to examine thepolicy document produced but to try to find out how language education policies
are actually formulated and whose interests are most influential in the negotiations over the wording of the final policy. One way to do this is to look at who is
involved in the actual policy-​formulation process and how the process is usually
carried out.
MEXT’s policy revisions relating to English language education, published periodically in the Course of Study policy documents, are based on recommendations
prepared by the English Education Expert Advisory Committee (henceforth theAdvisory Committee). According to Professor X, the Advisory Committee is created by MEXT “to gain professional opinion concerning a policy they want toimplement.” Thus, MEXT decides the general overall policy but “they need professional input in order to come up with the details.” The Advisory Committee,
therefore, does not have the power to design the direction of new policy; however,in Professor X’s experience, MEXT takes the results produced by the AdvisoryInterests and power in English education policy

251

Committee very seriously and generally the document they produce forms thebasis of the future Course of Study policy document.
The Advisory Committee usually consists of around eleven members, chosen
directly by MEXT or recommended by previous participants. According to the
MEXT website, the members in 20145 were as follows:
Four university professors
Three school principals (elementary, junior high, and high school)
The head of a regional board of education
A director of a private English education company (whose services include university
entrance exam preparation courses)
The president of Rakuten, an online shopping, travel, and banking company that uses
English as its official corporate language
The president of a private business consulting research instituteAs can be seen from this list, the Advisory Committee is not composed of merely
education specialists but also representatives of a number of business interests.
In addition, although the university entrance exam system is often criticized byscholars as one of the central problems of the current English education system, it
is of particular interest that a director of an entrance exam preparatory school also
has a place on the committee. Just from the make-​up of the committee members,
the potential for the presence of “competing managers […] with divided and competing goals” (Spolsky 2006: 97) is clear.
Then, how is policy development actually managed within the Advisory Committee and whose interests come to be promoted? The interview with Professor
X provided some useful information regarding how the decision-​making process
within the Advisory Committee functions and revealed the underlying power
dynamics. Although Professor X was not a member of the committee that set up
the recommendations for the ‘Teaching/​Learning English in English’ policy, he provided some valuable insights into how decisions are ultimately made when education policy is being developed. Firstly, although the presence of business interestson the committee could be considered by many external observers as a conflict ofinterests in the formulation of education policy, Professor X strongly disagrees. He
believes that having business people on the committees is a good thing because
basically they want to improve the current education system and the government
takes notice of them. As he succinctly explained, “[the government] won’t listen
to educators, so they’re not listening to us; they’re listening to the business community.” In other words, rather than creating a conflict of interests between thebusiness community and education specialists, the education specialists felt that

5This committee was not the actual committee that compiled the recommendations
that later formed the basis of the 2009 New Course of Study, but it is representativeof the type of people that have participated in English education policy-​making
committees in the past according to Professor X.

252

Lisa Fairbrotherthe presence of business people actually gave them more leverage to further theirown interests, that is, the improvement of Japanese English education policy.
According to Professor X, a much greater hurdle to the improvement of education policy regarding communication skills is the presence of other intellectuals on
the committee who strongly oppose the introduction of communication skills into
English education. In Professor X’s words, “as far as [MEXT] was concerned, theywanted both sides.” Within the context of Japanese consensus-​building practices,
this suggests that innovative ideas will always be watered down to some extent.
Indeed, Professor X explained that the role of the head of the committee is “to summarize what everyone is trying to say and try to get them to move to the center”
and this may involve a certain level of compromise, such as, for example, explicitly
stipulating a requirement for the comparison of English with Japanese linguistic
structure in the final policy. However, as MEXT deliberately includes people withstrongly opposing views on the committees, it could be argued that this dilution of
innovation may be a deliberate strategy.
Professor X, however, also revealed how the head of the Advisory Committee(who was a university professor in the 2014 committee) can manage the different
interests in the committee. The head of the committee writes the final report andultimately decides how the main recommendations will be formulated and which
ideas will just get a minor mention. As he explained, “the final decision of what toinclude in the final report is up to [the head of the committee]. […] [A]‌t times wehave to put in some notes to say that although this is the way we want to go, there
were other kinds of opinions as well.” Therefore, even if there are stark differencesof opinion, representing different interests, occurring within the committee negotiations, the head of the committee may be able to skillfully incorporate all theopinions raised in the committee, while highlighting certain interests over othersin the final recommendations document. This suggests that the head of the committee is entrusted with a certain degree of power to ultimately shape the final
recommendations, even though the ideas initially submitted to the committee may
be watered down considerably.
Another strategy used by senior committee members to balance the different
interests in the policy formulation process is to recommend members when newadvisory committees are set up. Some committee members have been able to recommend people to MEXT to become members of subsequent advisory committees
and often the people recommended are former students of those committee
members now holding important positions in education and research. Because
former students will generally be expected to conform to the Japanese systemof hierarchical relationships, this usually means a number of allies with similarinterests can be secured. Indeed, Professor X pointed out that certain senior committee members had been able to recommend a number of their former students tobecome members of subsequent advisory committees, implying the continuationof those senior members’ power and influence on policy.

Interests and power in English education policy

253

8 E
 valuations of the adjustment plan
The ‘Teaching/​Learning English in English’ was not to be implemented until 2013,
but as soon as the New Course of Study was announced, the adjustment plan was
critiqued from a number of perspectives, particularly from the academic community, teachers and students, who pointed out many of its potential weaknesses. In
language management terms, they noted deviations regarding certain aspects ofthe ‘Teaching/​Learning English in English’ policy and, in many cases, they evaluated them negatively. Yamada (2010) gives examples of a number of Japanesescholars who claimed that the ‘Teaching/​Learning English in English’ policy would
be ineffective from a pedagogical standpoint. For example, Erikawa (2009) argued
that it is more appropriate to use the students’ L1 in a foreign language-​teachingenvironment and that there is no proof that ‘Teaching/​Learning English in English’
is more effective than other methods. Indeed, this is a reasonable claim to make,considering that MEXT’s policy does not show any empirical evidence in order tojustify its policy change. Furthermore, Terashima (2009) argued that teaching thefour skills of listening, speaking, reading, and writing will not automatically leadto improved communication skills, and teaching writing and speaking will not be
possible under the current system with its large class sizes.
Negative responses were also recorded from in-​service teachers. In their surveyof teachers in Fukui prefecture, Yamada and Hristoskova (2011) discovered that
although 52.7% of Japanese teachers totally or partially agreed with the introduction of the policy, almost 15% completely disagreed with it. In the same study,
34% of high school students in academic courses and 45% in vocational courses
reported that they would be worried about the introduction of the ‘Teaching/​
Learning English in English’ policy. Some teachers also voiced their worries. For
example, the two pre-​service and two in-​service Japanese teachers interviewed by
Nagamine (2012) in his study on perceptions towards the new policy all felt various
levels of pressure and anxiety. The two in-​service teachers felt the threat of native-​speakerism, fearing they would be disadvantaged compared to native-​speaker
English teachers, and one pre-​service teacher voiced the opinion that MEXT’s ultimate plan is to get rid of Japanese teachers with lower-​level speaking skills. The
two in-​service teachers expressed their dislike of MEXT, with one teacher evenreporting that he felt betrayed by the government and politicians. Other negative
responses from teachers related to pedagogical and ideological concerns. One pre-​service teacher felt that students would not be receptive to ‘Teaching/​Learning
English in English’ because the use of English in the classroom would make themfeel uncomfortable. Moreover, none of the teachers in Nagamine’s interviews had
ever personally experienced being taught English through the medium of English
at school so they questioned whether teachers would realistically be able to do itthemselves. One in-​service teacher even vowed that she would never use English
to teach in her classroom. Additionally, a pre-​service teacher expressed rather ethnocentric views, highlighting Japan’s differences compared to other countries, and254

Lisa Fairbrotherclaiming that there is a Japanese way of teaching most suited to the local context(i.e., without using English as a medium of instruction).
Many of these pre-​implementation evaluations of the adjustment plan canbe interpreted as the manifestation of interests resistant to change. Pedagogy-​
based arguments from certain scholars could be seen to reflect their interests inmaintaining the status quo, possibly because their status is somehow entwinedwith the maintenance of other educational methods. Similarly, general, non-​specific expressions of concern over the new policy could be seen as reflecting a fearof change (Bouchard 2017).
It is therefore important to consider why there might be such resistance tochange, particularly considering the situation of foreign language education overseas where the ‘Teaching/​Learning English in English’ might not seem particularly
radical at all. One possible explanation may stem from the ideological issues previously mentioned relating to the commonly perceived binary relationship between
Japan and the Other. Hashimoto (2013) also points out that the ‘Teaching/​Learning
English in English’ policy is deliberately not referred to as ‘English as a medium
of instruction,’ because bilingualism is not its aim. Rather, she sees it as a manifestation of the Othering of English in Japan. Although is it debatable as to how far
these ideological positions are present in the conscious formulation and evaluationof the ‘Teaching/​Learning English in English’ policy, as was shown in the previous
description of the workings of the Advisory Committee, the fact that MEXT deliberately includes academics in the Advisory Committee who are resistant to theidea of communicative language teaching cannot be overlooked.

9 I mplementation of the ‘Teaching/​Learning English in
English’ policy
The ‘Teaching/​Learning English in English’ policy was officially implemented fromthe beginning of the school year in April 2013, four years after its initial announcement in the New Course of Study. Although there is some debate as to whether the
Course of Study documents should be considered a policy (see Fukunaga 2016),
Professor X’s understanding is that “the Course of Study is law. It’s a legal document, which means teachers should, or will have to follow what is in this document.” The gravity of this statement suggests that the ‘Teaching/​Learning English
in English’ policy will be implemented quite thoroughly. However, many of thecurrent author’s undergraduate students claim that their high school English
classes were not taught in English at all. Therefore, it is worth investigating how
the policy is actually being implemented. One way of gauging the implementationof the policy is to look at the data that MEXT has published based on a nation-​wide survey of high schools (MEXT 2016a, 2016b, 2017). The results published in2016 and 2017 show very similar tendencies. In high schools with special English

Interests and power in English education policy

255

courses,6 over 80% of teachers and students were reported to be using English forover half their class time, which shows that while a clear majority of teachers arefollowing the New Course of Study guidelines in these schools, 20% of teachers arenot. Furthermore, in schools without special English courses, over 50% of both
Japanese teachers and students reported using English for less than half of theirtime in class and 15% of students reported using English for less than 25% of theirtime in class. According to the data provided by MEXT, it can be concluded that theextent of the implementation of the policy is limited.
Even in schools where language education policy is reported as being
fully implemented, it is important to examine exactly how the policy is being
implemented to check for issues of consistency and quality. For example, Saito’s(2017) interviews with three high school teachers and observations of their classes
revealed that although all the teachers and students had very positive attitudes
towards the ‘Teaching/​Learning English in English’ policy, the amount of English
used in the classroom varied significantly among individual teachers. Some teachers
used English for 95% of class time, while others used it for only 35% of the time.
According to Takegami’s (2016) questionnaire and interviews conducted withthirty Japanese teachers of English teaching at private secondary schools in Hokkaido, the majority of teachers responded that they do use English for more than
50% of their class time. However, observations of the actual classes revealed that the
English being used in the classroom was mainly limited to classroom instructions
and directions. Tsukamoto and Tsujioka (2013) made similar findings in theirsurvey of teachers in western Japan. They also found that teachers interpreted
the concept of communicative language teaching in very different ways, with the
majority of teachers limiting their use of communicative English in the classroom
to merely formulaic expressions, such as greetings and classroom instructions.
These results then beg the question of why the policy is not implemented consistently. One issue may be related to awareness, namely to what extent schools
and teachers are actually aware of the content of the policy. In his interview,
Professor X made a comment that “many teachers have actually read it,” which
implies that the policy makers themselves do not expect all classroom practitioners
to be familiar with the actual policy. Indeed, he also added that “[a]‌lot of teachers
don’t know [what’s in the guidelines].” Moreover, even if they do actually read thepolicy, it does not guarantee that teachers and schools will interpret it in the way
it was intended. Indeed, the teachers in Fukunaga’s (2016) study, who attended a
mandatory in-​service seminar on the New Course of Study, selectively listened tothe information provided and they only focused on information that they believedmight be useful when teaching their own individual classes. The teachers in her

6

In addition to the general course of high school studies, some schools offer specialized courses. According to the data provided by MEXT (2017), there were eighty-​six
high schools that offered courses with a special focus on English education, wheremore frequent and intensive English classes were provided.

256

Lisa Fairbrotherstudy did not read the New Course of Study Guide thoroughly, nor did they try tolearn its content. In their study of the implementation of the Common European
Framework of Reference (CEFR) in the European Union, Byram and Parmenter(2012: 4) point out that “like any text, the intentions of its authors may not be readby its users.” Clearly, this cannot be seen as a solely Japanese issue.
However, concerning the Japanese policy document specifically, the wordingof the guidelines gives the impression that teaching and learning in English could
be optional. For example, the New Course of Study Guide (MEXT 2009b) uses theterm “in principle” when referring to the teaching of English classes in English. In
Japanese, the term “in principle” (基本とする kihon to suru) gives a strong impression that something is optional and people will not be penalized for not following
the guidelines. Thus, the use of this term in the New Course of Study Guide gives aclear message to readers of the document that the policy will not be enforced strictly.
In fact, MEXT’s aim for implementation of the policy from the onset appears to
be partial. According to Professor X, full implementation of the policy has neverbeen the main goal:
Ultimately, the government basically said when we’re talking about teaching English
in English, we’re basically talking about teaching at least half of one class hour inEnglish. […] [W]‌hen a teacher is teaching this much in English then they’re teaching
English in English.

Therefore, MEXT’s overall expectations for the implementation of the policy appear to have been relatively low and this seems to be corroborated by the previously mentioned findings from their nationwide surveys (MEXT 2016a, 2016b,
2017). Indeed, while the New Course of Study Guide explicitly states that it is possible to use the Japanese language in class, when necessary, because there is noclear explanation of when the use of Japanese might be deemed necessary, thiswording leaves the door open for a wide range of interpretations.
It can be argued that these low expectations for policy implementation, originating from the policy makers themselves, are a reflection of the slow pace of socialchange in Japanese society as a whole. As can be seen in the time lag between theinitial announcement of the ‘Teaching/​Learning English in English’ policy and its
actual implementation four years later, policy change in Japan takes considerable
time. Some researchers have also pointed out that, whatever the English education policy, there is often a notable gap between policy and practice (Yoshida 2003;
Aspinall 2013; Bouchard 2017).
Other issues that influence the implementation of the ‘Teaching/​
Learning
English in English’ policy are institutional constraints and individual teachers’
beliefs and abilities. For example, Fukunaga (2016) found that generally there wasa lack of planning by regional authorities, districts, and individual schools. Someschools lack the internal organizational systems necessary to implement newpolicy changes. For example, there may be a lack of shared understanding amongst
teachers concerning how to teach the new curriculum as a team, a lack of sharedunderstanding of what pedagogical changes would be needed, and no clear leader

Interests and power in English education policy

257

of the implementation. Fukunaga (2016) found that teachers also felt individualpressures from their institutions. They were often forced to work excessively longhours but not given enough time to discuss and collaborate with other teachers.
Additionally, policy implementation was left to individual teachers to fathom bythemselves, rather than being planned as a strategy for the whole English teaching
department in their schools. The teachers also felt pressured to give priority touniversity entrance exam preparation and complained that it was unrealistic toimplement the new policy with large class sizes of forty students or more.
Some teachers’ beliefs were also found to be an obstacle to the implementation of the new policy. Some teachers felt that their English skills were not goodenough to teach communicative English, while others held the strong belief thatgrammar has to be taught via the L1, that is, Japanese (Takegami 2016). Other
teachers expressed concern that they might confuse students if they used English
above their current level (Tsukamoto & Tsujioka 2013; Takegami 2016). Therefore, it can be seen that a wide range of external and internal pressures on boththe institutional and individual levels can affect policy implementation. On the
one hand, competing interests appear to impede the full implementation of thepolicy, whereas on the other hand, participating agents do not appear to be able
to exercise power effectively in order to ensure implementation. Subsequently the
responsibility for implementation is left to individual teachers, who do not appear
to suffer repercussions if they fail to implement the policy in their classrooms.

10 P ost-​implementation evaluations
Kimura (2014, 2020) has argued that in order to assess the effectiveness ofadjustments and to position LMT research in the context of other language policy
and planning (LPP) research, it is necessary to include a post-​implementation/​
feedback stage. Indeed, a number of recent studies have examined responses tothe ‘Teaching/​Learning English in English’ policy after implementation, particularly the evaluation of the implemented adjustments. For example, the teachers in
Takegami’s (2016) and Fukunaga’s (2016) studies positively evaluated the overall
goals of the policy, and the high school students in Mori’s (2013) study felt that
their attitudes towards English were becoming more positive. On the other hand, anumber of post-​implementation issues have been raised. For example, Mori (2013)
found that almost 75% of the students in his study felt dissatisfied when the class
was completely taught in English, but their levels of satisfaction rose when the
proportion of Japanese was increased. These levels of satisfaction are undoubtedly
linked to students’ proficiency levels. Indeed, some teachers negatively evaluatedthe policy for not taking into account students’ low levels of English proficiency
and the perceived need to teach grammar in Japanese (Takegami 2016). Fukunaga(2016) further questions how students can be expected to develop communicative competence in English when they are not even taught communicative skills
in Japanese. She also highlights how the ‘Teaching/​Learning English in English’
policy ignores teachers’ other responsibilities, particularly the heavy emphasis

258

Lisa Fairbrotherthat schools place on university entrance examination preparation and administrative work, which leaves them little time to focus on planning their lessons anddeveloping new materials.
The post-​implementation evaluations reported in recent research seem to reflectissues of powerlessness for both teachers and students. Both express concerns
regarding the constraints of students’ limited language and communicative proficiency and teachers further express their powerlessness in situations where they
have conflicting responsibilities. In an ideal management cycle, this post-​implementation feedback will be taken up by language education policy makers to
improve future policy; however, in the Japanese context, there seems to be little
evidence of this so far. This, presumably, is related to the structure of English education policy-​making in Japan mentioned in Section 7, whereby the experts on
the English Education Expert Advisory Committee are involved in preparing thedetails and wording of a policy previously decided by MEXT, but not its implementation. Thus, the agents involved at different stages of the policy process appear
to lack sufficient power to guarantee implementation of the policy, particularly inlight of the institutional and pedagogical constraints mentioned here.

11 Conclusions
This chapter has examined the development of the Japanese ‘Teaching/​Learning
English in English’ policy from its initial formulation to its implementation andexamined the language management processes occurring at each of the stages,
tracing the underlying norms and expectations triggering the conceptualizationof the policy right down to its implementation and post-​implementation evaluation. Based on this research, a number of observations can be made regarding thefunction of interests and power in the management of English language education
policy in Japan.
Firstly, an examination of the norms and expectations underlying the noted
deviations and adjustment plans recommended by policy makers and influencers
reveal a wide variety of interests, including not only pedagogical interests but
also clear economic and political interests. Some of these interests conflicted withothers and also, as could be seen in the recommendation to hire more foreignteachers, seemed to favor a continuation of the past education policy of relying
on native-​speaker teachers to teach communicative skills rather than training
Japanese teachers.
Regarding the negotiations over the wording of the actual policy, the power
dynamics underlying the decision-​making process were examined. It could beseen that the power of others can be utilized to further one’s own interests. For
example, rather than being considered a hindrance, the presence of businessleaders on the English Education Expert Advisory Committee was seen by education specialists as a way to get English education policy moving forward, becauseof the government’s tendency to take the views of business leaders more seriously
than their own. Conversely, it could be argued that MEXT’s inclusion of academics

Interests and power in English education policy259

in the English Education Expert Advisory Committee, who actively oppose theintroduction of communicative skills in English language education, could be seen
as a means to fulfill their ideological interests to not drastically change school
language education, resulting in a watering down of any innovative policies.
Secondly, an examination of the general language management processes
occurring in the English Education Expert Advisory Committee negotiations revealed that the individual actor who controls the management of the languageof the final recommendations report can ultimately determine which policy
suggestions will be highlighted, and subsequently given more power, and which
will not be included, or just given a minor mention in the footnotes. Furthermore,former members of the committee are granted the power to recommend membersof new committees, predominantly allies, to make it potentially easier to further
their own interests in the formulation of future policy. Thus, the decision-​making
process itself could also be seen as a process of power.
Concerning the actual implementation of the policy, however, neither education specialists, business leaders nor the government appear to have the power,
or will, to fully implement the policy. In fact, MEXT’s own low expectations forthe amount of English use required in the classroom suggests that a great dealof leeway is being given regarding the interpretation of the policy. In practice,
implementation can be easily avoided or resisted on the institutional and individual classroom level. It is MEXT’s rescinding of power at the implementation
stage, by means of not requiring full implementation of policy, that means that themultiple interests in local boards of education, schools and individual classrooms
can allow non-​or only partial implementation of a policy without much obstruction. Furthermore, it is unclear how far the post-​implementation evaluations ofteachers and students are being heard by policy makers. Although teachers’ limited language proficiency and excessive workloads have been reported as serious
concerns, it is doubtful that these micro-​level deviations are being noted by agents
who can influence future policy. As long as at least some teachers follow the policy,
MEXT appears to be satisfied. In this way, the policy can be ignored or resisted,
as long as overall change can be seen to be progressing slowly in the intended
direction.
This study has also shown that an examination of the power relations andinterests underlying the language management of agents involved in the development of the ‘Teaching/​Learning English in English’ can help reveal the complexities of the development of language education policy and also highlight some of thereasons why policies may or may not be implemented. From an LMT perspective,it also clearly highlights the fact that there is not just one macro and one microlevel, but many, often competing, interests operating at different levels and stagesof the process, with different degrees of power (Neustupný 1997). This leads to acomplex web of overlapping and intersecting management processes (Fairbrother2020) at various stages of policy formulation and implementation, including the
pre-​implementation and post-​implementation stages, which have so far received
little attention in LMT-​based research. I hope that this chapter has demonstrated

260

Lisa Fairbrotherthe unique potential that LMT has for furthering our understanding of language
issues and future avenues for the development of the theory itself, particularly
regarding the pre-​and post-​implementation stages of language policy.

References
Ali, N. L., Baldauf, R. B., Shariff, N. M. M. & Manan, A. A. (2018) Utilisation of
language management theory in framing interview pro formas. In L. Fairbrother,J. Nekvapil & M. Sloboda (eds) The Language Management Approach: A Special
Focus on Research Methodology. Frankfurt on the Main: Peter Lang, 141–​156.
Aspinall, R. W. (2013) Globalization and English language education policy inJapan: External risk and internal inertia. In D. B. Willis & J. Rappleye (eds)
Reimagining Japanese Education: Border, Transfers, Circulations, and the Comparative. Oxford: Symposium Books, 127–​146.
Barker, D. (2018) Fundamental problems with English education in Japan. Annual
Report of the Faculty of Education, Gifu University 20, 139–​148.
Befu, H. (1983) Internationalization of Japan and Nihon bunkaron. In H. Mannari& H. Befu (eds) The Challenge of Japan’s Internationalization: Organization andCulture. New York: Kodansha International, 232–​266.
Bouchard, J. (2017) Ideology, Agency and Intercultural Communicative Competence: A Stratified Look into EFL Education in Japan. Singapore: Springer.
Browne, C. & Wada, M. (1998) Current issues in high school English teaching inJapan: An exploratory survey. Language, Culture and Curriculum 11 (1), 96–​111.
Byram, M. & Parmenter, L. (eds) (2012) The Common European Framework of Reference: The Globalisation of Language Education Policy. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Chua, C. S. K. (2008) Singaporean educational planning: Moving from the macro
to the micro. In A. J. Liddicoat & R. B. Baldauf (eds) Language Planning in Local
Contexts. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
CLAIR (The Council of Local Authorities for International Relations, Japan) (2015)
Japan exchange and teaching (JET) programme: History. On WWW at http://​jetpr​ogra​mme.org/​en/​hist​ory/​. Accessed March 11, 2020.
Dovalil, V. (2018) Qual der Wahl, or spoiled for choice? English and German as
the subject of decision-​making processes in the Czech Republic. In T. Sherman& J. Nekvapil (eds) English in Business and Commerce: Interactions and Policies.
Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 276–​309.
Erikawa, H. (2009) Eigokyōiku jihyōzaikaishukenshita no kōkō shidō yōryō [Thehigh school course of study at the time when English education is under thesovereignty of the financial world]. Eigokyōiku [English Education] 57 (13), 41.
ETS (Educational Testing Service) (2011) Test and score data summary for TOEFL
internet-​based and paper-​based tests. January 2010-​December 2010 test data.

Interests and power in English education policy

261

On WWW at https://​www.ets.org/​Media/​Resea​rch/​pdf/​TOEFL-​SUM-​2010.pdf.
Accessed December 17, 2021.
Fairbrother, L. (2015a) The management of language and power in interculturalcontact situations in Japan. International Journal of the Sociology of Language
232, 59–​78.
Fairbrother, L. (2015b) The ‘multiform’ linguistic, sociolinguistic and sociocultural
practices of plurilingual employees in European multinationals. The Japanese
Journal of Language in Society 18 (1), 162–​175.
Fairbrother, L. (2018) The management of everyday interactions in the Japanesebranches of European multinationals. In T. Sherman & J. Nekvapil (eds) English
in Business and Commerce: Interactions and Policies. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton,
149–​171.
Fairbrother, L. (2020) Diverging and intersecting management: Cases of the simultaneous management of deviations by multiple parties in contact situations.
In G. C. Kimura & L. Fairbrother (eds) A Language Management Approach toLanguage Problems: Integrating Macro and Micro Dimensions. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, 133–​156.
Fan, S. K. (2008) Teaching Japanese interaction as a process of language management. In P. Heinrich & Y. Sugita (eds) Japanese as Foreign Language in the Age of
Globalization. Munich: Iudicium, 139–​163.
Fan, S. K. (2009) Language planning or language management: Treatment ofproblems for the development of ‘Japanese in context.’ Ibunka Komyunikēshon
[Intercultural Communication] 21, 7–​35.
Fishman, J. A. (1972) The Sociology of Language: An Interdisciplinary Social Science
Approach to Language in Society. Rowley: Newbury House.
Fukunaga, S. (2016) Implementing English Education Policy in Japan: Intersubjectivity at the Micro-​, Meso-​, and Macro Levels. Unpublished PhD thesis, Universityof Washington.
Hashimoto, K. (2013) ‘English-​only’, but not a medium-​of-​instruction policy: The
Japanese way of internationalising education for both domestic and overseas
students. Current Issues in Language Planning 14 (1), 16–​33.
Hayes, C. (1979) Language contact in Japan. In W. Mackey & J. Ornstein (eds) Sociolinguistic Studies in Language Contact: Methods and Cases. Sydney: Language
Australia, 363–​376.
Holliday, A. (2006) Native-​speakerism. ELT Journal 60 (4), 385–​387.
Honna, N. (1995) English in Japanese society: Language within language. Journalof Multilingual and Multicultural Development 16 (1–​2), 45–​62.
Jernudd, B. H. & Neustupný, J. V. (1987) Language planning: For whom? In
L. Laforge (ed) Actes du Colloque international sur l’aménagement linguistique /​262

Lisa Fairbrother

Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Language Planning. Québec: Les
Presses de L’Université Laval, 69–​84.
Kaplan, R. B. & Baldauf, R. B. (1997) Language Planning: From Practice to Theory.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Keidanren [The Japan Business Federation] (2000) Keidanren ikensho:
Gurōbarukajidai no jinzai ikusei ni tsuite [Written opinion of the Japan Business
Federation: The development of human resources in the age of globalization].
On WWW at http://​www.keidan​ren.or.jp/​japan​ese/​pol​icy/​2000/​013/​. Accessed
September 5, 2017.
Kimura, G. C. (2014) Language management as a cyclical process: A case study on
prohibiting Sorbian in the workplace. Slovo a slovesnost 75 (4), 255–​270.
Kimura, G. C. (2020) The bridging role of the researcher between different levelsof language management: The case of a research project at the German-​Polish border. In G. C. Kimura & L. Fairbrother (eds) A Language Management
Approach to Language Problems: Integrating Macro and Micro Dimensions. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 237–​253.
Ko, M. (2010) Japanese Cinema and Otherness: Nationalism, Multiculturalism and
the Problem of Japaneseness. London: Routledge.
Koike, I. (ed) (1978) The Teaching of English in Japan. Tokyo: Eichosa.
Kubota, R. (2009) Rethinking the superiority of the native speaker: Toward
a relational understanding of power. In M. Neriko (ed) “Native Speakers”
Revisited: Multilingualism, Standardization, and Diversity in Language Education. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 233–​247.
Liddicoat, A. J. (2013) Language-​in-​Education Policies: The Discursive Construction ofIntercultural Relations. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
LoCastro, V. (1996) English language education in Japan. In H. Coleman (ed) Society
and the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 40–​63.
Marriott, H. (2004) A programmatic exploration of issues in the academic interaction of Japanese students overseas. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 14(1), 33–​54.
Marriott, H. (2013a) A programmatic exploration of issues in the academic interaction of Japanese students overseas. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication
14 (11), 33–​54.
Marriott, H. (2013b) Multilingualism among university staff: A case study oflanguage management at an Australian university. International Journal of Multilingualism 10 (4), 454–​468. doi: 10.1080/​14790718.2013.832126.
MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology) (2003) Action plan to cultivate “Japanese with English abilities.” On WWW at https://​www.
gifu-​net.ed.jp/​kyoka/​eigo/​Commu​nica​tive​Engl​ish/​Regard​ing%20the%20Es​tabl​
ishm​ent%20of%20an%20Act​ion%20P ​lan%20to%20Cu​ltiv​ate%20%A1%C8J​apan​
ese%20w​ith%20Engl​ish%20Ab​ilit​ies%A1%C9.htm. Accessed March 11, 2020.

Interests and power in English education policy

263

MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology) (2009a)
Dai 8 setsu gaikokugo [The high school new course of study. Clause 8, foreign languages]. In Kōtōgakkō gakushū shidō yōryō [The New Course of Study],
87–​92. On WWW at https://​www.mext.go.jp/​a_​m​enu/​sho​tou/​new-​cs/​your​you/​kou/​kou.pdf. Acces​sed June 11, 2018.
MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology) (2009b)
Kōtōgakkō gakushū shidō yōryō kaisetsu. Gaikokugohen eigohen [The highschool new course of study guide: Foreign language section, English section].
On WWW at http://​www.mext.go.jp/​compon​ent/​a_​m​enu/​educat​ion/​micro​_​det​
ail/​_​_​i​csFi​les/​afi​eldf​i le/​2010/​01/​29/​128200​0_​9.pdf. Accessed September 9, 2019.
MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology) (2016a)
Heisei 28 nendo kōritsukōtōgakkō/​
chūtōkyōikugakkō (kōkikatei) ni okeru
eigokyōiku jisshijōkyōchōsa: kōtōgakkō shūkeikeika [The Heisei 28 survey on
the implementation of public high school and secondary school (later course)
English education: Tabulation results for high schools]. On WWW at http://​www.mext.go.jp/​compon​ent/​a_​m​enu/​educat​ion/​det​ail/​_​_​i​csFi​les/​afi​eldf​ile/​
2017/​04/​07/​138​4236​_​06.pdf. Accessed September 5, 2017.
MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology) (2016b)
Heisei 28 nendo eigo kyōiku jisshijōkyōchōsa (kōtōgakkō) no kekka [The resultsof the Heisei 28 survey on the implementation of English education (highschools)]. On WWW at http://​www.mext.go.jp/​compon​ent/​a_​m​enu/​educat​ion/​det​ail/​_​icsFi​les/​afi​eldf​i le/​2007/​04/​07/​13842​36_​0​2_​1.pdf. Accessed September
5, 2017.
MEXT (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology) (2017)
Heisei 29 nendo eigo kyōiku jisshijōkyōchōsa (kōtōgakkō) no kekka [The resultsof the Heisei 29 survey on the implementation of English education (highschools)]. On WWW at https://​www.mext.go.jp/​compon​ent/​a_​m​enu/​educat​
ion/​det​ail/​_​_​i​csFi​les/​afi​eldf​i le/​2018/​04/​06/​140​3469​_​02.pdf. Accessed December
19, 2021.
Mori, K. (2013) “Jugyō wa eigo de” wa hontō ni kanō ka [Is the policy, “English
classes should be conducted in English,” really possible in Japanese high schoolclassrooms?]. Journal of the Chubu English Language Education Society 42, 45–​
52.
Mouer, R. & Kawanishi, H. (2005) A Sociology of Work in Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nagamine, T. (2012) Pre-​service and in-​service EFL teachers’ perceptions of the
new language education policy to “conduct classes in English” in Japanese
senior high schools. Japanese Senior High Schools Multiculturalism in Asia: Proceedings of the Second Afrasian International Symposium, 123–​139.

264

Lisa Fairbrother

Nekvapil, J. (2009) The integrative potential of language management theory.
In J. Nekvapil & T. Sherman (eds) Language Management in Contact Situations: Perspectives from Three Continents. Frankfurt on the Main: Peter Lang,
1–​11.
Nekvapil, J. & Nekula, M. (2006) On language management in multinational companies in the Czech Republic. Current Issues in Language Planning 7 (2–​3),
307–​327.
Neustupný, J. V. (1994) Problems of English contact discourse and language planning. In T. Kandiah & J. Kwan-​Terry (eds) English and Language Planning: A
Southeast Asian Contribution. Singapore: Academic Press, 50–​69.
Neustupný, J. V. (1997) Gengo kanri to komyuniti gengo no shomondai [Language
management and issues of community languages]. In Tagengo, tabunka
komyuniti no tame no gengo kanri: sai o ikiru kojin to komyuniti [Language
management for multilingual and multicultural communities: Individuals andcommunities which live the difference]. Tokyo: National Language ResearchInstitute, 21–​37.
Neustupný, J. V. (2002) Language and power into the 21st century. A paper for theInternational Conference on Language and Empowerment, Malaysian Associationof Modern Languages, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, April 11–​13, 2002. Also available on WWW at http://​lan​guag​eman​agem​ent.ff.cuni.cz/​bibli​ogra​phy.
Rudwick, S. (2018) The struggle to promote an African language at a South African
university: A language management perspective. In L. Fairbrother, J. Nekvapil& M. Sloboda (eds) The Language Management Approach: A Special Focus on
Research Methodology. Frankfurt on the Main: Peter Lang, 157–​183.
Saito, Y. (2017) High school teachers’ cognition of the policy of “English classes inEnglish”, and their classroom practice. The Language Teacher 41 (1), 3–​7.
Seargeant, P. (2009) The Idea of English in Japan: Ideology and the Evolution of a
Global Language. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Son, M. (2017) International student participants’ evaluations and interests in situations when receiving support in Japanese. In H. Muraoka (ed) Ritual Interaction in Contact Situations: Language Management in Contact Situations, Vol. 14.
Research Project Reports no. 309. Chiba: Chiba University Graduate School of
Humanities and Social Sciences, 41–​61.
Spolsky, B. (2006) Language policy failures. In M. Pütz, J. Fishman & J. Neff-​vanAertselaer (eds) ‘Along the Routes to Power’: Explorations of Empowerment
through Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 87–​106.
Takegami, F. (2016) An exploratory study on the impact of the new Teaching
English Through English (TETE) curriculum policy in Japan: A case study ofthree teachers. International Journal of Social and Cultural Studies 9 (3), 15–​45.

Interests and power in English education policy

265

Terashima, T. (2009) Eigokyōiku ga horobiru toki: “eigo de jugyō” no ideorogī [TheMoment when English Education will Die: The Ideology of “Classes in English”].
Tokyo: Akashi.
The Prime Minister’s Commission on Japan’s Goals in the 21st Century (2000)
The Frontier within: Individual Empowerment and Better Governance in the New
Millennium. On WWW at http://​www.kan​tei.go.jp/​jp/​21cent​ury/​rep​ort/​pdfs/​.
Accessed September 7, 2017.
Tsukamoto, M. & Tsujioka, N. (2013) Teaching English through English to seniorhigh school students in Japan: Towards the implementation of the new courseof study. Shitennoji University Bulletin 55, 309–​324.
Yamada, H. (2010) Teaching/​learning English in English at Japanese senior highschools: The debate. Jin-​Ai University Research Bulletin 9, 43–​53.
Yamada, H. & Hristoskova, G. (2011) Teaching and learning English in English
in Japanese senior high schools: Teachers’ and students’ perceptions. Fukui
eigokenkyūkai kaihō [Bulletin of the Fukui Prefecture English Teachers’
Association] 69, 3–​33.
Yoshida, K. (2003) Language education policy in Japan: The problem of espoused
objectives versus practice. The Modern Language Journal 87 (2), 290–​292.

Hiroyuki Nemoto

The investment in managing interests andpower through study abroad: Literacy andidentities from a translingual perspective
Abstract With respect to language management, this chapter explores the ways Japanese
university students invest in managing their interests and power relations with others
in order to mediate literacy and identities, while socializing themselves into academic
and social contexts during and after study abroad. Drawing upon the concept of investment (Norton 2010), the L2 motivational self system (Dörnyei 2009), and the conceptof translingual practice (Canagarajah 2013a, 2013b, 2013c), an in-​depth investigation
is made about how their management of interests and power as well as (re-​)negotiations of a sense of self affects their investments in literacy practices and enhances theirtranslingual development of literacy and identities in the socialization processes. This
study employed a mixed methods approach by collecting the qualitative data througha case study of sixteen Japanese university students as well as the quantitative data
through a questionnaire survey of fifty-​seven students in an intensive study abroad
program. Further qualitative data were collected from three of the participants who
undertook a one-​academic-​year-​long study as exchange students in Australia after completing this intensive program. Their re-​socialization processes into L1 literacy practices
in Japan after a yearlong exchange were also analyzed. The findings suggest that aperspective of Language Management Theory (Jernudd & Neustupný 1987; Neustupný
1985, 1994, 2004) enables us to apply an analytical lens to the roles which negotiationsof interests and power play in the processes of literacy socialization, and contributes to
elucidating the intricate nature of identity negotiation and literacy development during
and after study abroad.
Keywords language management, investment, translingual literacy, translingual identity, study abroad, community of practice, individual network of practice

1 I ntroduction
With the increasing recognition of study abroad (SA) contexts as one of themost fertile research fields for applied linguists, SA research has placed greater
emphasis on epistemological and methodological diversity by following not only
experimental and cognitive approaches to second language acquisition (SLA) but
also sociocultural ones, including language socialization, Vygotskian sociocultural
theory, and other poststructuralist approaches (cf. Kinginger 2013a). These sociocultural approaches to SLA have increasingly enabled researchers to analyze the268

Hiroyuki Nemoto

positive impacts of L2 learners’ overseas academic participation on their negotiation of identities and development of literacy instead of merely regarding themas linguistically deficient members in overseas host communities. Indicating that
L2 users cannot always be construed as “newcomers” who stress the integrativeand instrumental purposes of L2 learning, Higgins (2011: 12) claims that thoseusers can re-​fashion their identities in response to global forces by maximallyutilizing the resources that additional language learning and use provide themwith. Furthermore, given the growing sociolinguistic awareness about languages
as mobile resources in a globalized world (Blommaert 2010), it is imperative to
re-​conceptualize students’ socialization into SA contexts from a translingual perspective. Canagarajah (2013a: 1–​2) has claimed that from the translingual perspective, communicative competence is considered as the ability to merge different
language resources in situated interactions for new meaning construction. He
also clearly distinguishes between two confusing concepts, “translingual” and“multilingual,” by stating that whereas “multilingual” perceives the relationshipbetween languages in an additive manner, “translingual” addresses the synergythat treats languages as constantly being in contact and mutually influencing eachother (Canagarajah 2013b: 41). In order to analyze such synergy, in addition to
SA contexts, it is crucial to investigate pre-​and post-​SA socialization into L2 andL1 literacies and to gain insight into how students socialize themselves into L2literacy prior to departure, consolidate their acquired academic skills in L2 after
returning home, and apply those skills in L1 literacy.
Based on the theory of language socialization (Duff 2010; Schieffelin & Ochs
1986), the present study examines the ways Japanese university students invest
in managing interests and power relations with others, developing literacy, andtransforming their identities, while socializing themselves into various academic
and social contexts during and after SA. The focus of this study is placed on thethree different stages: an intensive program involving the preparation for andinitial orientation to SA organized by a public university in Japan, a yearlong
exchange program in Australia, and the post-​SA stage. Drawing upon the concept of investment (Norton 2010), the L2 motivational self system (Dörnyei 2009),
and the concept of translingual practice (Canagarajah 2013a, 2013b, 2013c), an in-​depth investigation is made about how their management of interests and power
as well as (re-​)negotiations of a sense of self helps them invest in literacy practices
and develop literacy and identities translingually in the socialization processes.
Language Management Theory (LMT) (Jernudd & Neustupný 1987; Neustupný
1985, 1994, 2004) is furthermore employed as an analytical tool for exploring thecorrelations among students’ mediation of interests and power, negotiations of asense of self, investments in literacy practices, and translingual development ofliteracy and identities.

The investment in managing interests and power

269

2 C
 onceptual framework
Owing to the globalization of higher education, SA programs have been actively
incorporated into university curricula in many countries to develop students’interactive competence and consolidate their academic literacy in English prior tosending them into the workforce. Considering this educational movement, more
empirical studies of SA students’ participation in overseas academic contexts need
to be undertaken to provide universities with more comprehensive findings thatare applicable to these programs. Given that academic discourse should not be
regarded merely as an entity but considered in relation to a social, cognitive, andrhetorical process, positioning, representation, and stance-​taking (Duff 2010: 170),
it is crucial for research on SA to adopt sociocultural theories of SLA and take
into consideration not only students’ cognitive processes of L2 learning but theirnegotiations of interests and power with others when they engage in discursive
academic and social practices in L2. Several studies have adopted the theory oflanguage socialization in the sociocultural and sociolinguistic investigation of SA
students, but a dearth of SA research has employed longitudinal data collection
procedures particularly for dealing with such negotiations in the developmental
processes of literacy and/​or identities (cf. Kinginger 2013a).
The conceptual framework of the present study integrates some specific sociocultural perspectives into students’ literacy socialization processes through which
they manage interests and power, (re-​)negotiate a sense of self, and developtranslingual literacy and identities. Several different theories and concepts are
employed in the framework, including language socialization (Duff 2007, 2010;
Ochs 1986), poststructuralist and psychological approaches to L2 identity (Dörnyei
2005, 2009; Norton 2000, 2010; Norton & McKinney 2011), community of practice (CoP) (Lave & Wenger 1991), individual network of practice (INoP) (Zappa-​
Hollman 2007; Zappa-​Hollman & Duff 2015), and the aforementioned concept oftranslingual practice (Canagarajah 2013a, 2013b, 2013c). Language socializationrefers to language learning through interactions with others who are more proficient in the target language explicitly and/​or implicitly providing novices withthe knowledge of the relevant sociocultural practices and normative ways of using
the target language (e.g., Duff 2007, 2010; Ochs 1986). As a broad framework, thistheory thus enables us to investigate the impacts of interactions and power relations with others on the developmental processes of linguistic, cultural, and communicative competence (Duff & Talmy 2011). However, given such broadness, itneeds to be reconsidered and expanded by incorporating more specific analyticalperspectives into it to explore language behavior and behavior toward language
more comprehensively.
In the present study, students’ power negotiations in their socialization
processes are analyzed in relation to their identity transformations using thetwo above-​mentioned approaches to L2 identity. The poststructuralist approachemphasizes the relationship between identity and power in SLA and addresses
the dynamic nature of identity and multiple identity positions, focusing on power

270

Hiroyuki Nemoto

relations with others, contexts, language users’ understanding of their own relationship to the world, the processes of their constructing that relationship acrosstime and space, and their understanding of the possibilities for the future (Norton
2000, 2010; Norton & McKinney 2011). From this perspective, Norton has stressedthat an identity is thus regarded as a site of struggle and changing over time.
The poststructuralist approach has been further elaborated by the concept of“investment” (Norton 2010). This concept helps us explore interests and power
in relation to learners’ ambivalent desire to learn the target language, sociocultural constraints on learning, their changing identities, language learning commitment, and intentional choice (Darvin & Norton 2015, 2016; Kramsch 2013; Norton
2010; Norton Peirce 1995). The psychological approach is represented by Dörnyei’s(2005, 2009) L2 motivational self system, which involves ideal and ought-​to L2
selves. An ideal L2 self is based on the desire to be an ideal L2 user and to reducethe discrepancy between our actual and ideal selves, whereas an ought-​to L2 self
refers to what learners think they should possess to meet expectations and to avoid
possible negative outcomes (Dörnyei 2009).
The concept of a CoP furthermore contributes to specifying relations of powerin students’ literacy socialization processes by enabling us to examine the communities where novice members participate in a variety of social situations in multiple
ways to be fuller participants (Lave & Wenger 1991). However, some researchers
have problematized the tightly circumscribed sense of discourse socialization (Duff2007; Duff & Talmy 2011; Haneda 2006; Zuengler & Miller 2006). Hence, the present
study also considers the newly emerged concept of INoP that emphasizes opportunities for learning not only in a specific community but also through various othersand enables us to analyze an individual’s personal relationships within or beyond
a social group, community, or institution (Zappa-​Hollman 2007; Zappa-​Hollman& Duff 2015). Among the theoretical concepts employed in the framework, theconcept of translingual practice plays a central role in shaping the developmental
trajectories of each participant’s literacy socialization, allowing this longitudinal
study to pay close attention to the ways L1 and L2 synergy affects the ongoing anddynamic processes of literacy development and identity transformations.
Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual model of this study that explores Japanese
students’ management of interests and power in their literacy socialization
processes. The participants in this study were expected to increase their socialization through three different stages: intensive SA, yearlong SA on exchange,
and the post-​SA stage. The study hypothesized that they would manage interestsand power relations with others in their INoPs and CoPs while (re-​)negotiating
a sense of self by forming ideal and/​or ought-​to L2 and L1 selves. From a sociocultural perspective of SLA, such negotiations through management of interestsand power are deemed as a site of struggle which provides the participants with
opportunities to adjust their own social positionings in INoPs and/​or CoPs andpromote agency, empowerment, and a sense of belonging. Therefore, the interestsand power which are dealt with in this study do not only pertain to (non-​)linguistic interests and power in language management but also involve those in

The investment in managing interests and power271“sociocultural management” and/​or “communicative management,” which focus
on the sociocultural dimension of behavior toward language and the componentsof communicative acts (Nekvapil 2016: 16–​17). Considering the dynamic nature ofidentity and students’ multiple identity positions in literacy socialization processes,
it is also presumed that their management of interests and power as well as (re-​)negotiations of a sense of self can promote and be promoted by their investments
in discursive literacy practices, development of translingual literacy, and co-​construction of translingual identities with others. The present study explores therelational, temporal, and situational factors affecting these correlations in theprocesses of students’ literacy socialization.

Figure 1: The conceptual model

3 M
 ethodology
Employing a mixed methods approach, which integrated quantitative data withqualitative research, this longitudinal study began by collecting quantitative datafrom fifty-​seven Japanese students who participated in the intensive SA program
through a public university in Japan and by conducting a case study of sixteen
students from this cohort. Further qualitative data were collected from three ofthe participants who undertook a SA program for one academic year as exchange

272

Hiroyuki Nemoto

students in Australia after completing the intensive program. Their re-​socialization
processes into L1 literacy practices in Japan after the yearlong exchange program
were also analyzed.

3.1 Th e intensive program for the initial orientation to SA
The intensive program for the initial orientation to SA that involved two separate
components—​a three-​month pre-​departure course and a five-​week English for Academic Purposes (EAP) program at an Australian university—​was offered as one of
the elective subjects at a public university in Japan, aiming to prepare students foryearlong SA. One of the main characteristics of the pre-​departure course was theintercultural task-​based computer-​mediated communication (TB-​CMC) project inwhich Japanese students engaged in online interactions with learners of Japaneseat the same Australian university as the one in which the abovementioned EAP
program was offered. While casually interacting and establishing rapport withlearners of Japanese, the students were also required to conduct online interviews
with them to complete a two-​A4-​page written assignment in English at the endof the pre-​departure course. The students were provided with explicit written
instructions for this assignment on how to analyze the elicited information andintegrate the main findings into their texts to support their own arguments logically. If necessary, they were encouraged to use other relevant quotations, facts,
and statistics to consolidate the findings in their written assignment. This projectfurthermore expected Japanese students to develop online L2 learning networks
prior to departure and expand them to face-​to-​face networks while they were inAustralia.
In the five-​week EAP program in Australia, the students were offered various
academic English classes and workshops that helped them improve their English
literacy and prepare for the International English Language Testing System(IELTS). After finishing the fourth week, the students were required to actuallytake the IELTS and were provided with an opportunity to self-​measure their own
learning achievements.

3.2 P articipants
From a cohort of fifty-​seven informants in the intensive SA program, sixteen
students participated in a case study, and then three of them were selected for thelongitudinal case study. As presented in Table 1, this study explored the cases of
one male and two female students—​Keita, Masako, and Yurina—​who majored inInternational Studies and Social Welfare. All the three participants are referred tousing pseudonyms in this study. The data for their yearlong study at an Australian
university were collected in two different academic years (2015 and 2016) based on
the periods during which the three students were enrolled at the university. Keitaand Masako studied at this Australian university as exchange students in 2015, andYurina followed a year later.

273

The investment in managing interests and power

Keita participated in the intensive SA program in 2012 and obtained an IELTS
score of 6.0 when he was a first-​year student. Masako also joined the program in
her first year in 2013, and her IELTS score was 5.5, whereas Yurina gained an IELTS
score of 6.0 during the intensive program when she was in her third year in 2014.
Before applying for student exchanges, they needed to meet the minimum English
language entry requirement of an IELTS score of 6.5. Although Keita and Masako
successfully achieved the required score, Yurina had a score of 6.0 when applying
for her enrollment in November 2015. She was thus given a conditional offer thatallowed her to enroll in the undergraduate course at the university in the second
semester in 2016 if she could obtain a score of 6.5 in the first semester. Yurina
enrolled in the IELTS preparation course at the university-​affiliated language
center in February 2016, and after she achieved an IELTS score of 6.5 in April, she
was accepted for the university course for the second semester.
Within a few months after returning to Japan, all of them took the Test ofEnglish for International Communication (TOEIC) and gained very high scores.
Since the TOEIC score was considered as persuasive evidence of English competence in job applications in Japan, they considered that it would be advantageous for them to take the test, particularly at a time when they still had efficient
listening skills. Keita and Masako obtained 930 and 935 out of 990 respectively,
whereas Yurina’s score of 890 was below 900 but still high enough to prove herachievement through SA.
Table 1: The profiles of the three exchange students
Gender

Major

IELTS during
intensive SA/​Year level in
Japan

IELTS before
exchange/​
Year level in
Japan

TOEIC after
exchange/​
Year level in
Japan

Male

International
Studies6.0 (2012)/​
1st year

6.5 (2014)/​
3rd year

930 (2016)/​
5th year

Masako Female

International
Studies

5.5 (2013)/​
1st year

6.5 (2014)/​
3rd year935 (2016)/​
5th year

YurinaSocial Welfare 6.0 (2014)/​
3rd year

6.0 (2015)/​
4th year
6.5 (2016)/​
5th year

890 (2017)/​
6th year

Keita

Female3.3 D
 ata collection and analysis
The quantitative data were collected through a questionnaire survey of fifty-​seven
Japanese students who participated in the intensive SA program from 2012 to 2016.
The two questionnaire surveys with the same fourteen closed-​and open-​ended

274

Hiroyuki Nemoto

questions were conducted after the third week of the EAP course and after the
students returned to Japan. The first survey results were subsequently compared with those of the second one. These questions predominantly aimed to discover how the students perceived their own improvements in reading, listening,speaking, and writing skills, how they socialized with peers who were studying
English as a second language (ESL) in the program, how they interacted withteachers and their host family, and how the TB-​CMC project impacted their development of L2 networks and task management in the EAP program. A four-​point
Likert scale, including “very,” “somewhat,” “not really,” and “not at all” was used
for responses to the closed-​ended questions, while the open-​ended questions wereused to explore the specific reasons for each closed-​ended answer.
The study also collected qualitative data through a case study of sixteen
participants who were randomly selected out of fifty-​seven Japanese students inthe same program. Based on the weekly reflective journals, which these students
were asked to compose during the five-​week course, follow-​up interviews wereconducted with them to supplement the quantitative data and elicit detailed accounts of the students’ engagement in the discursive activities in L2. Their IELTS
results and course academic records were also collected in this study. Further qualitative data were collected from Keita, Masako, and Yurina during their participation in the exchange program and in the processes of their literacy socializationback in Japan. The interviews were conducted once per semester during their yearlong SA and twice at the post-​SA stage—​a few weeks after returning to Japanand in their final semester of university study. This longitudinal approach provided “developmental evidence that can otherwise only be inferred” and enableda thick and detailed description of the findings and triangulation of the data (Duff,
2008: 43). The integration of two different research methods also allowed theresearcher to corroborate qualitative findings using quantitative data, to provide
the richness and the details of the findings, and to offer new interpretations ofthem in this study (cf. Dörnyei 2007; Rossman & Wilson 1985).
In this study, micro-​level sociocultural data analyses were undertaken basedon LMT to explore the students’ internal representations while undertaking situated interactions. Along with the traditional model in which norm deviations
are followed by noting and evaluating the deviations, adjustment planning, andimplementation of strategies to rectify the deviations, this study employed the positive flow of language management, which involves participants’ encountering ofintercultural phenomena and their positive evaluation of such phenomena in contact situations (cf. Nekvapil 2011; Nemoto 2004, 2011; Neustupný 2003). Adopting
these two different perspectives in the data analysis, LMT played a role in discovering the intricate correlations between the theoretical concepts in the conceptual
framework and in probing the factors that affected the students’ negotiations ofinterests and power in the developmental processes of their literacy socialization.

The investment in managing interests and power

275

4 F
 indings and discussion
Using micro-​level sociocultural analyses, this study found that the students
adopted discursive language management approaches to gain a critical awarenessof how power operated in literacy practices and develop literacy and identities
translingually in the processes of L2 socialization and L1 (re-​)socialization during
and after SA. After identifying the general characteristics and major factors of
their socialization through quantitative analysis, the findings of the case study
will delineate the ways in which the students managed interests and power by
noting the complexity of L2 socialization, evaluating social positionings and situated identities, and investing in literacy practices in their INoPs and CoPs.

4.1 Overview of questionnaire survey results
Table 2 presents the results of the questionnaire surveys that this study administered after the students’ third week of the EAP course and after SA. Each option
was scored as one of four grades: “very =​4,” “somewhat =​3,” “not really =​2,” and“not at all =​1.” As indicated in the table, most of them clearly recognized theirimprovements in speaking, listening, and writing skills in English. In particular,
the highest rate (M =​3.35 and SD =​0.64 after SA) was found in relation to listening
skills. By contrast, they did not consider their learning in the EAP course as substantially affecting their development of L2 reading skills (M =​2.60 and SD =​0.82
after the third week and M =​2.88 and SD =​0.57 after SA). The open-​ended findings
about such skills revealed that the students evaluated their engagement in situated English discourse in the authentic L2 academic and social environments as
productive L2 learning experiences. However, at the same time, they admitted
that their own participation in such discourse practices was not always active on
the grounds that they were occasionally overwhelmed by the power of norms in
the host community and imbalanced power relations with other ESL students andlocal community members. Despite the problems with such power negotiations,the students sufficiently developed their INoPs with peers (M =​3.28 and SD =​0.65
after SA), teachers (M =​3.07 and SD =​0.65 after SA), and their host family (M =​3.14
and SD =​0.55 after SA) toward the end of the course.

276

Hiroyuki Nemoto

Table 2: Survey results (N =​57)
Mean (M)Standard Deviation (SD)

Week 3

Post SA

Difference Week 3

Post SA

Difference

Speaking skills

3.04

3.12

+​0.08

0.65

0.54

−0.11

Listening skills

3.18

3.35

+​0.170.50

0.64+​0.14

Writing skills

3.12

2.96

−0.16

0.60

0.60

±0

Reading skills

2.60

2.88

+​0.28

0.82

0.57

−0.25

Peer networks in L2

3.21

3.28

+​0.070.53

0.65+​0.12

Interactions withteachers

3.33

3.07

−0.26

0.55

0.65

+​0.10Interactions with hostfamily

3.32

3.14

−0.18

0.47

0.55

+​0.08Impacts of the projecton L2 networks

2.58

2.72

+​0.14

1.07

0.96

−0.11

Impacts of the projecton task management

2.67

2.65

−0.02

0.79

0.72

−0.07

Very =​4, Somewhat =​3, Not really =​2, Not at all =​1

On the other hand, the impacts of the pre-​departure TB-​CMC project on theirdevelopment of L2 networks (M =​2.58 and SD =​1.07 after the third week as well
as M =​2.72 and SD =​0.96 after SA) and task management (M =​2.67 and SD =​0.79
after the third week and M =​2.65 and SD =​0.72 after SA) were limited to theextent that they were not able to significantly recognize the positive relationships
between online and actual face-​to-​face interactions as well as the commonality oftask management processes between Japan and Australia. The analysis of open-​
ended findings helped elaborate on students’ lower evaluations of these two categories. Some students struggled to receive online messages from their Australianpartners in the project and such irregular responses prevented them from seeking
their interests in experiencing successful online interactions and collecting interview data before departure. However, more importantly, judging from the positive
comments made by several students on the impacts of the project, these evaluations
depended on the ways they interpreted learning events and power relations in thehost community and related previous learning experiences to their developmentof INoPs and task management processes in intensive SA (cf. Byram 1997, 2008).
On comparing Week 3 with post-​SA surveys, Table 2 furthermore indicatesthat in general, the longer they socialized themselves into SA contexts, the better
they became able to manage their L2 socialization. However, it was found thatstudents had limited perceptions of their subsequent improvements in writing,interacting with their teachers and host family, and impacts of the project on task

The investment in managing interests and power

277

management. As a result of multiple analyses of open-​ended findings, this study
discovered that their higher awareness of the complexity of academic writing,intercultural interactions, and task management gradually made them more meticulous about their socialization into SA contexts. On the contrary, such awarenessfurther encouraged them to proceed to the subsequent phases of language management where they evaluated their own struggles while considering the power ofnorms and other people in host communities, and then planned how to negotiateinterests and power relations with others through their investments in literacy
practices. These quantitative findings will be elaborated upon by the qualitative
ones from a case study of Japanese students.

4.2 N
 oting the complexity of L2 socialization
The qualitative findings revealed that the students’ management of interests andpower resulted from their noting of the complexity of L2 socialization primarily
by encountering the intercultural diversity of ESL speakers, identifying differencesin academic genres between Japan and Australia, striving to organize their own
speech acts, and experiencing difficulty with the logical structure of academic
discourse. The students’ struggles in dealing with the diversity of ESL speakers
occurred particularly at the initial stage of the intensive EAP course. Regarding herdifficulty in socializing with her ESL classmates in the course, Masako commented
as follows:
アジアとか中東からきているクラスメートが訛のある英語を早口で話すので聞き取れないことがしょっちゅうある。他の国から来た人たちは違う英語を話すことに気がついたし、私たちが日本で習った英語がすべてではないとわかった。 (Masako’s journal entry, Week 2 of the intensive SA)[My classmates from other Asian and Middle Eastern countries speak accented
English so fast, so I can’t catch them often. I realized that people from different countries speak different types of English. Now I understand that the English we learnedin Japan isn’t the only one.]

There existed some different varieties of English which were affected by ESL
students’ native languages in this multicultural ESL CoP. In fact, several otherstudents reported that discussions and conversations were dominated by classmatesfrom Southeast Asia and the Middle East who had relatively higher interactive
competence in L2. It thus seems that the Englishes used by those classmates constituted more powerful and dominant varieties of ESL in the community and created hierarchical relationships among ESL learners who tended to be viewed asa homogeneous group. Learning ESL may not be straightforward in this type ofmulticultural CoP on the grounds that students need to manage culturally different
power and linguistic norms to establish a favorable position as ESL learners in thecommunity. In this study, their awareness of this diversity led the participants toreconfirm that their L2 selves cannot be developed in a manner detached from the278

Hiroyuki Nemotoworld they live in. The participants’ encounter with otherness and interpretationof the other facilitated how they evaluated and determined who and what they
were in the CoP (Burgat 2003; Prior 2011). This approach also encouraged them toconsider how they can gain or lose power and negotiate their right to speak withpeers and new power relationships in their INoPs and CoPs.
The participants also noted the complexity by confronting challenges to their“habitus” (Bourdieu 1991), which refers to “more or less permanent ways of being
and behaving” (Kinginger 2013b: 340; Kramsch 2009: 112) and by recognizing thedifferences in academic genres between Japan and Australia, such as teacher-​andstudent-​centered or unidirectional and reciprocal teaching styles, students’ roles
as a passive recipient of knowledge and an active interlocutor, and so on. In particular, the participants in the intensive program struggled to accustom themselvesto the highly interactive learning environments in Australian classes where reciprocal interactions between teachers and students were flexible and frequent. The
three students who subsequently studied at an Australian university on exchange
became more sensitive to their difficulty in adjusting themselves to this type of
CoP at the initial stage of their one-​academic-​year SA. They realized that they
were expected to voice their opinions as active participants, but their habitus
consisted of a different type of agency, which was closely related to gaining a
deeper understanding of a subject content through attentive listening rather than
through interaction. Such noting of deviations from linguistic and communicative norms tentatively undermined their sense of membership in the classroom
CoPs. However, recognizing their powerlessness gradually led them to reconsider
their habitus as a more powerful approach to task management which allowed
them to concentrate on collecting relevant information regarding their forthcoming assignments. In this way, they developed their own agentive selves who
implemented a strategy of applying their habitus translingually and adhering tobeing attentive listeners in class intentionally rather than forcing themselves to be
more than they could be.
The other factor that enhanced the participants’ awareness of the complexity
pertained to their experiences of difficulties in balancing power relations withothers by organizing their own speech acts in authentic L2 interactions. At theinterviews after the third week of the intensive course, most of them stressedthat they experienced some problems with word combinations when they spoke
English. Their insufficient organization of spoken texts resulted from their failure
to put certain words together and to make complete sentences as well as the lackof ability to use a “because” clause to describe reasons after stating their own ideas.
One of the participants mentioned in the interview, “I know it’s not good at all,but I’m always using just a few words or short phrases and then trying to makemyself understood.” Admitting their own excessive reliance upon others to readbetween the lines and to even have a tacit understanding of their utterances, theparticipants, as powerless members in their CoPs and INoPs, noted the necessityof improving social positionings in intercultural contact situations and the importance of the speaker’s agency and responsibility to specify their own intentions

The investment in managing interests and power279

and realize and maintain their interests. Their limited L2 competence to express
their own opinions and interests could be understood as a deviation from an ideal
norm of communicative symmetry, and this norm contributed to enhancing thestudents’ feelings of powerlessness and threatening their situated identities.
Toward the end of the EAP course and during their yearlong exchange, theparticipants’ noting of the complex nature of L2 socialization was further triggeredby their struggles with the logical structure of academic discourse in both spoken
and written texts. In the interview conducted at the end of the first semester of his
exchange, Keita emphasized that he felt satisfied with his achievement of interactive competence in English, but confessed that one of his weaknesses was his
insufficient ability to logically organize his own text in written assignments. He
also referred to the limitation of his speaking skills in the academic settings bymentioning, “Once I try to explain slightly complicated things regarding my study,
my speech becomes ungrammatical.” By noting the deviations from such linguistic
norms, the students recognized that their insufficient academic competence could
negatively affect their realization of academic interests and ongoing negotiationsof a sense of belonging in the academic CoPs. Such recognition triggered theiragency to enhance their literacy socialization.
As Zappa-​Hollman and Duff (2015: 336) claim, the process of language socialization should not be merely considered as cultural transmission by those withinstitutional power and compliance by novices but understood as involving
students’ active negotiation and contestations of norms and practices in relation
to their agency, goals, abilities, and preferences. Their noting and subsequent negative evaluation of new relations of power, challenges to their habitus, and theirpowerlessness and insufficient agency in SA contexts led them to develop attitudes
toward tackling cultural contact, negotiating norms and practices, gaining knowledge of situated interactions, and improving L2 competence in informal and academic CoPs. This study indicates that noting the complexity of L2 socialization
allowed the participants to reconsider the importance of securing their interests toincrease cultural capital, which represents “knowledge, educational credentials andappreciation of specific cultural forms” (Bourdieu 1986; Darvin & Norton 2015: 44)
in the processes of negotiating power relations with others. Such reconsideration
contributed to their investment in managing interests and power to improve L2
academic literacy, construct L2 identity, and develop translingual practice at thesubsequent stages.

4.3 E
 valuating social positionings and situated identities
A language management perspective enabled this study to discover that theparticipants’ struggles with L2 learning in contact situations, which were construed as a deviation from the communicative norm of symmetric communication,
were conducive to their evaluation of their own social positionings in INoPs and
CoPs and transformation of their situated identities. During their intensive SA,
as they recognized their positionings in their INoPs and CoPs, the participants

280

Hiroyuki Nemoto

noted their own L2 selves that were based on their status as legitimate peripheral participants in the contexts and then negatively evaluated such existing L2
selves. Consequently, while planning to avoid negative outcomes that they might
have encountered if they remained in peripheral positions in their CoPs, they
gradually developed the fundamental component of their ought-​to L2 selves in
the SA contexts. Recognizing the situatedness of interactions with others, they
implemented communicative and sociocultural management to become morecommunicative agents and more active negotiators of their interests to empowerthemselves and consolidate their English competence by using it rather than being
passive learners.
Furthermore, at the stage of their yearlong exchange, the three exchange
students more frequently evaluated power relations with others to secure theirinterests in their CoPs. In doing so, they became more highly motivated to be fuller
participants in their host academic communities and L2 users as global citizens
who were not concerned about whether their linguistic status was native or non-​native. In this way, they evaluated deviations from the specific linguistic and communicative norms which were shown in the previous section on the backgroundof negotiation of sociocultural norms. Such evaluation caused them to develop a
more specific ought-​to L2 self that necessitated them to be more proactive community members who deliberately negotiated power relations to position themselvesin a favorable way in contact situations.
After completing student exchanges and returning to their home university in Japan, the three students had a strong awareness of their L1 selves whenreadjusting themselves to the host L1 communities and undertaking job-​hunting
activities. In particular, while they were frequently required to engage in formal
L1 literacy practices in job-​hunting contexts, this study found that they exerted
agency with a partial L2 self whereby they strategically mixed their identity as
native speakers of Japanese with their L2 selves in the processes of securing theirinterests to gain “economic capital” which would guarantee their future incomes(Bourdieu 1986). For example, when appealing their interculturality and problem-​solving skills, which they had developed in contact situations, they maximized
their own L2 originality in job interviews by exemplifying academic and sociocultural experiences during their intensive and long-​term SA. Furthermore, theirlenient attitudes toward diverse ways of thinking, which they had gained throughintercultural interactions with others during SA, enabled them to respect individual differences in L1 opinions, and to be more open to suggestions and seek
constructive criticisms in L1. Keita commented in one of the interviews:
オーストラリア留学中は友達と意見が食い違うことも珍しくなかったので、日本でも他の人が僕と違う意見の時は、拒否しないでまず話をよく聞いて、どうやってうまく受け入れて折り合いをつけるか考えるようにしています。
(Keita, second post-​SA interview)[It wasn’t unusual to have some disagreements with my friends when I studied inAustralia. So, even in Japan, when other people have different opinions from me, I try

The investment in managing interests and power281

not to reject them but to listen and consider how to accept them and to work out acompromise carefully.]

As Keita’s case reveals, the participants’ investment in harmonizing differinginterests with their interlocutors in SA contexts occasionally triggered suchtranslingual application of L2 practices in L1.
The students’ management of L2 (re-​)positionings in overseas INoPs and CoPs
furthermore generated their acceptance of marginal positions in L1. After overcoming various types of cultural contact during SA, all the three students emphasized that they did not get daunted easily even when they were treated unfairly.
For example, Masako stated, “I often felt out of my comfort zone when I studied
abroad, so I don’t feel down easily even if I get the cold shoulder from company
interviewers during job hunting.” Through the multiple analyses based on LMT,
this study found that the three students compared their L2 selves in Australia
with their L1 selves in Japan and then noted that being a peripheral participant
in L1 situations was less stressful to them compared to that in L2. Particularly,
the last two cases indicate that the students employed cultural capital and norms
of intercultural interactions that they had gained in SA contexts as the criteria
for evaluating power negotiations in L1 situated interactions back in Japan. The
findings demonstrated that the ways in which the students managed their own
social positionings and situated identities in their INoPs and CoPs through SA
were translingually applicable to their management of interests and power in L1
contexts and contributed to their exerting a hybrid type of agency which integrated L2 into L1 selves.

4.4 I nvestment in literacy practices in INoPs and CoPs
Based on their situated identities at each stage, the students enhanced their literacysocialization and managed interests and power by investing in literacy practices intheir INoPs and CoPs in different ways. The students’ investments predominantly
emerged in the form of power negotiations during intensive SA. Such negotiations
led the three exchange students to transform their cultural and social capital into
valuable resources in new contexts during their yearlong exchange (Darvin &Norton 2015) and to construct other fundamental components of their ought-​toselves and specify ideal selves in both L2 and L1 after SA.

4.4.1 P ower negotiations during intensive SA
During intensive SA, this study identified that the participants’ investment andlanguage management actions in L2 literacy practices resulted in four types ofpower negotiations, including their establishment of an equitable relationshipand rivalry with ESL peers, engagement in collaborative scaffolding of situatedinteractions in L2, expansion of online networks to face-​to-​face INoPs, and involvement of host family in academic INoPs. Their negotiating attempts to build equitability with their ESL classmates occurred particularly at the beginning stage when

282

Hiroyuki Nemoto

they felt that their classmates treated them like children due to their insufficientinteractive competence in English. Reflecting upon the unfair treatment, somestudents stated, “I don’t want to be in that kind of position anymore,” and even fostered competitive rivalry with their classmates. One of the students commented,“I’m trying hard to be a better English user than my Asian classmates, because
I can feel confident about myself when I think that my English skills are slightly
higher than those of others.” Such rivalry gradually expanded to occasional collaborative L2 interactions with their ESL classmates. The participants invested
in co-​constructing peer interactions in English as a lingua franca by providing
ongoing collaborative scaffolding with each other to discover situationally appropriate expressions in English and compensate for their insufficient utterances inboth academic and social contexts.
Furthermore, some of the students who undertook frequent online interactions
with their Australian partners in the predeparture TB-​CMC project effectively
expanded such online INoPs into face-​to-​face ones by directly meeting their online
partners and engaging in casual interactions, predominantly in English and sometimes in Japanese. Keita was the one who regularly met his Australian partner withan Asian ethnic background on the weekends. He emphasized the importance of
this type of INoP in one of his weekly journals:
オンラインパートナーと会って話すのはいつもとても楽しい。いつもJポップの話をして、パートナーは僕のたどたどしい英語をとても辛抱強く聞いてくれる。日本語も上手いので、英語で言葉が浮かばない時には、会話の流れを止めないように所々日本語を混ぜて話すこともある。 (Keita’s journal entry,
Week 4 of the intensive SA)[It’s always great fun to meet and talk to my online partner. We usually talk about
Japanese pop culture, and he listens to my clumsy English very patiently. He is also
good at Japanese, so whenever I don’t come up with proper English words, I use someJapanese words in English sentences to keep the flow going.]

His investment in peer interactions in this INoP allowed Keita and his partner toexplore mutual interests and establish an equitable and productive relationshipbetween them. His partner’s curiosity about the authentic and latest information
pertaining to pop culture in Japan resulted in Keita applying his individual L1
resources as cultural capital to the interactions, whereas this INoP constituted
Bourdieu’s (1986) social capital which refers to “connections to networks of power”(Darvin & Norton 2015: 44). It seems that he unwittingly empowered his investment in literacy practices by implementing adjustment strategies of drawing upon
his cultural capital in peer interactions and consolidating his INoP as social capital.
Others built rapport with their host family and made efforts to form temporary academic INoPs and increase their social capital at home by involving hostfamily members in academic discussions and relying on them as informal discussion partners. For example, when she had dinner with her host mother, Yurina was
frequently requested to describe what she learned from the EAP course. Such an

The investment in managing interests and power

283

interactive atmosphere was conducive to her engaging in language management
actions, including reviewing and evaluating what she had discussed in class on the
day and preparing for the forthcoming in-​class discussions by practicing stating
her opinions about the assigned topics beforehand.
According to these findings, it is evident that language socialization researchneeds to pay attention to not only the learners’ agentive, strategic, goal-​directed
efforts, and resourcefulness but also to the role played by peers and others as very
powerful agents of (co-​)socialization and identity work (Zappa-​Hollman & Duff
2015: 358). In fact, by analyzing investment in power negotiations based on LMT,
this study confirmed that “the conditions of power in different learning contexts
can position the learners in multiple and often unequal ways, leading to varying
learning outcomes” (Darvin & Norton 2015: 37). These students’ cases neverthelessdemonstrated that due to their efforts to negotiate the conditions of power andongoing investments in L2 literacy practices, they noted and evaluated their L2
selves and also developed their skills of discovery and interaction whereby theyacquired knowledge of the norms and practices that ESL students in SA contexts
should follow and interacted based on the knowledge (Byram 1997, 2008). Furthermore, their investments in language management facilitated their re-​evaluating
their L2 selves, negotiating alternative and more powerful ought-​to L2 selves toavoid remaining in peripheral positions, and becoming friendly rivals with peers,collaborative L2 users, providers of information about Japan in L2 interactions, andactive recipients of L2 academic support. The findings suggest that SA students canmanage interests and power and construct their situated identities depending on
the contexts they are in by “resisting ascribed positionalities and developing subject positions based on their projected visions of who they are” (Higgins 2011: 10).

4.4.2 T ransformation of cultural and social capital during yearlong SA
During their participation in discipline-​specific courses at an Australian university for one academic year, the three exchange students in this study managed
interests and power by more actively investing in new literacy practices in theirout-​of-​classroom CoPs and INoPs. In particular, it is notable that the students used
cultural capital that they already possessed as affordances and transformed suchcapital into valuable resources in new non-​academic contexts (Darvin & Norton
2015: 45). Keita joined a local Kyudo (Japanese archery) community in the citywhere his host university was located and taught Kyudo to other local members.
In addition to acting as captain of the Kyudo club at his home university in Japanprior to participating in the yearlong exchange, he won the high school Kyudo
tournament in his prefecture and then played in the national competition in his
third year of senior high school. Although he realized that the uniqueness of thistraditional Japanese sport such as Judo and Kendo can attract Australian people
through intensive SA, he was frustrated by his lack of linguistic ability to explain
the characteristics of Kyudo properly. Thus, prior to his departure for the yearlong
exchange, he allocated enormous efforts to prepare for explaining Kyudo. While284

Hiroyuki Nemoto

he employed Kyudo expertise as his cultural capital in interacting with others at
the beginning of his yearlong SA, he obtained information about the local Kyudo
community from one of his friends who studied Japanese at the same university
as him. Once he started to participate in it, the community constituted his CoP
where he placed himself in a favorable position as a volunteer instructor but alegitimate member. This CoP also enabled Keita to transform his cultural capital,
which involved his knowledge and skills of Kyudo, into resources for negotiating
his interests and power relations with local Australian members.
Masako’s case revealed that her transformation of cultural capital into L2 interactional resources led her to invest in managing interests and power in cooking
INoPs in her dormitory. In the situated social interactions at the shared kitchen anddining space, while sharing how to cook culturally different meals with her friends,
she employed her knowledge of traditional Japanese meals as a tool of interactions.
Masako furthermore demonstrated her skills in eliciting cultural information fromothers that had been previously developed through the interviewing activities in
the pre-​departure TB-​CMC project in the intensive SA program. As a result ofher ongoing negotiations of interests and power, the INoPs that Masako formed
through cooking gradually expanded to those where she shared various cultural
topics with her friends. Such networks were even transferred to her social capital in the form of academic INoPs, which enabled her to gain academic support
from them and secure her academic interests. In this way, as discussed by Zappa-​
Hollman and Duff (2015), informal interactions with members of her INoPs helped
Masako to access and construct academic and disciplinary knowledge.
Yurina transformed her experiences in constructing social capital in Japan into
affordances to develop her networks of power in yearlong SA. Yurina, who had
played volleyball since she was 13 years old, participated in a volleyball club at thehost university, the membership of which allowed her to negotiate interests andpower with other members in team discussions about game plans. Although she
was initially reluctant to voice her opinions in the discussions, her team members
gradually expected her to provide suggestions or comments, because her strategic
playing style, tactics, and dedicated contribution to the team, which she had gained
through her social capital in Japan, led them to consider her as one of the leading
players in the team. Her team members’ respect enhanced Yurina’s solidarity withthem and empowered her to be a legitimate speaker in the team who felt more
responsible for her own voice. She stated in the interview in her second semester:
チームミーティングでチームメートが議論するのをよく観察してきましたが、説得しようとするときは本当に上手にこまかく理由を話すんです。私もチームメートを真似て話を組み立てようとずっと心がけていて、今ではどうやってチームメートを説得すればいいかなんとなくわかってきました。
(Yurina, second interview in the yearlong SA)[At our team meetings, I have carefully watched the way my team members argue
with each other, because whenever they try to convince other members, they stateThe investment in managing interests and power

285

detailed reasons very well. I’ve tried to structure my speech by mimicking what theydo. Now I’ve somehow learned how to persuade my team members.]

In Yurina’s case, her language management behavior including noting and evaluating her own position in this CoP allowed her to familiarize herself with local
norms of interactions and to experiment with local discursive practices rather thanrejecting new behaviors (cf. Jackson 2013: 182). Such an attitude contributed to thedevelopment of her argumentation skills by observing and emulating others as amodel of situated interactions. These skills were also applied in her developmentof logical reasoning in academic contexts and helped her improve L2 academic
literacy.
Through investment in L2 literacy practices in their own INoPs and/​or CoPs, theexchange students secured their interests while harmonizing the differing interestsof others and formed specific ought-​to L2 selves. His response to members’ expectations and avoidance to form a wrong impression about a traditional Japanesesport enabled Keita to manage power relations with members and realize that
he needed to be one of the representative Kyudo players in Japan and to teachJapanese chivalry in L2. Similarly, Masako’s social behavior to avoid adhering to
her stereotypical view of other cultures and to discover authentic cultural information in intercultural interactions allowed her to negotiate mutual interests anddeem herself an active listener and a provider of knowledge of traditional and contemporary Japan in L2. In Yurina’s case, her growing awareness of her own position in the team contributed to her balancing power relations with team members
and triggered her sense of self as a game planner who needed to explain the teamtactics in L2 properly in order to win the inter-​university competitions. From theperspective of language management, this study revealed that the students’ investment in L2 interactions with their peers extended beyond building rapport withthem and played a crucial role in noting and evaluating expected roles in their
CoPs and INoPs. Such noting and evaluation empowered them to maximize cultural and social capital by implementing personal and cultural resources in communication, to establish favorable positions to increase social power in their CoPs
and INoPs, and to improve L2 literacy to secure not only their memberships but
also their academic interests in SA contexts. The students’ strategic transformationof cultural and social capital into affordances constituted sociocultural management and also led to their implementation of communicative management in thesituated interactions.

4.4.3 R
 e-​negotiating L1 and L2 selves after SA
After returning to Japan, all the three students had limited INoPs and CoPs in L2.
In Keita’s case, his INoP with a Malaysian student in the Kyudo club at his home
university provided him with some opportunities for L2 interactions. Masako’s
L2 INoPs in Japan consisted of her social capital gained through SA, which wastransformed into her Skype networks with friends in Australia and involved her

286

Hiroyuki Nemoto

academic network with the American supervisor of her graduation research.
Yurina’s INoPs were limited to temporary ones where she took care of foreign
customers as a part-​time salesperson at a department store. In contrast to such
limited investment in L2 INoPs, they actively invested in formal literacy practices
in L1 in job-​hunting activities through which they re-​negotiated their L1 selves
and increased their awareness of their ought-​to L1 selves so as to manage theirinterests and power. It is common for Japanese university students to search for
employment and make their career decisions in the final year of their four-​year
university study. By reviewing the strengths and weaknesses of their status asformer exchange students, they realized that merely having SA experiences did
not suffice in making themselves appealing in job interviews on the grounds thata large number of former short-​term SA students and working holiday makers
were in the same job-​search competition. Such noting triggered their language
management to develop their ought-​to L1 selves and resulted in them placing a primary focus on their academic selves as well as cultural capital, both of which they
had improved through SA. Such a focus caused the students to apply L2 academic
norms and practices, which they had invested in but struggled to learn during SA,
in the job-​hunting discourse, particularly using the logical organization and rhetorical style in L2 written and spoken texts in L1. Yurina, for example, explained
her strategy of being assertive in job applications and interviews.
いつも意見のメインポイントをまず言うようにして、それから具体例を使って詳しく説明するようにしていました。これは留学して覚えたことで、このやり方で口頭での説明もエントリーシートの文章も上手くまとめることができたと思います。 (Yurina, second post-​SA interview)[I always tried to introduce the main points of my opinions first and then explained
details using examples. That is what I learned through SA. I think that this strategy
helped me strengthen my speeches and application documents as well.]

The findings indicate that as a result of language management, the students “discovered their own rhetorical strengths and preferences as they adopted different
strategies for voice” and integrated L2 rhetorical strengths into L1 to pursue
their interests and transform their cultural capital into future economic capital(Canagarajah 2013b: 63).
Another major requirement for these three students to accomplish in their
final year of university study was to complete their graduation theses. This study
found that their academic selves in L2 and cultural capital, which had increased
through L2 academic literacy practices, were also applied in their managementof interests in the home academic contexts and contributed to them reframing
their own academic power in the process of completing their graduation research.
For example, since Keita and Masako were required to compose their graduationtheses in English, they were empowered by maximizing the skills that they had
developed during their yearlong exchange, particularly in relation to data collection and analysis, L2 text structure and organization, and logical development of

The investment in managing interests and power

287

ideas in written texts. Keita’s case also revealed that reconstructing his ought-​to
L2 self in the home academic contexts led him to promote his transcultural self-​management and apply metacognitive skills, which he had obtained through SA,
in his graduation research. His sustained efforts to tackle many weekly readings
and written assignments at his host university in Australia allowed him to review
his performances, manage his time, make daily, weekly and monthly schedules,
and set up several different short-​term goals. His transcultural perspective of thetask management based on his reconstructed ought-​to L2 self facilitated applying
such skills in the process of his research and thesis writing on returning to Japan.
Keita and Masako furthermore re-​negotiated their academic selves in L2 at theirhome university and activated the disciplinary knowledge as their cultural capital,
which they had gained through SA, in their graduation theses in order to explore
their academic interests. Keita expanded what he had learned in Pacific Studies andcomposed his thesis, which dealt with the dynamics of a Samoan family. Masako’s
thesis topic, “Filipina in Japan,” derived from her interest in migrants and ethnic
minorities that she had learned in the subject entitled “Crossing Borders: Diasporas
and Transnationalism.” She formed the theoretical framework of her research andcomposed the literature review of the thesis by referring to the articles that she
had read on this subject.
From the perspective of language management, the findings imply that various types of investments in literacy practices, which resulted from the students’“ingenuity, resourcefulness, and agency,” constituted adjustment strategies formediating their interests and power in the processes of L2 socialization and (re-​)socialization into L1 literacy practices (Duff & Anderson 2015: 338). Throughinvestment, the students made some attempts to balance interests and power relations with others and then (re-​)evaluated and (re-​)negotiated their L1 and L2 selvesby applying their cultural and social capital in various literacy practices during andafter SA. Their investments further helped them consider how they should develop
an ideal professional self during job hunting. Keita and Masako received official job
offers from global logistics companies, whereas Yurina was accepted into a global
telecommunication company. Those offers encouraged them to re-​evaluate how totransform their cultural capital into future economic capital, imagine their ideal
selves more clearly, and then establish a goal of becoming a translingual humanresource who can leverage hybrid identities as well as both L1 and L2 literacies in
global business settings. The findings demonstrated that the analysis of students’investments in managing interests and power based on LMT suitably equipped
this study to explore “how learners are positioned, constrained or empowered asthey navigate diverse spaces and perform a range of identities” (Darvin & Norton
2016: 34).

5 C onclusions and implications
The findings indicate that the LMT perspective enables us to apply an analyticallens to the roles that negotiations of interests and power relations with others play

288

Hiroyuki Nemotoin students’ investment in the processes of literacy socialization and contributes
to elucidating the intricate nature of identity negotiation and literacy development during and after SA. In particular, this study highlighted that their language
management behavior led the students to (re-​)consider not only how to mediatelinguistic and non-​linguistic interests but also how to adjust social positionings intheir INoPs and CoPs. Such behavior also resulted in their conducting translingual
negotiations of norms, negotiating senses of selves across time and space,transforming cultural capital into valuable resources in new literacy contexts, andintegrating L2 rhetorical strengths into L1 as an adjustment strategy for promoting
literacy socialization.
As a result of exploring interests and power from the perspective of language
management, this study reinforced the view of literacy socialization as “bidirectional, reciprocal, or multidirectional and always temporally, socially, and spatiallysituated and contingent” (Duff & Anderson 2015: 338). Importantly, in addition to
the multiple relationships among experts, novices, and peers, there existed bidirectional effects between literacy practices in academic and social contexts in theprocesses of students’ socializing themselves into the SA and post-​SA contexts.
The participants’ language management actions from observing and engaging
in discursive literacy practices in their local and/​or out-​of-​classroom INoPs and
CoPs were conducive to securing their subjective positions, developing networksof power as their social capital, and consolidating academic literacy during SA.
They also employed their cultural capital as power and adopted academic language
management approaches by applying L2 academic competence in job-​hunting
contexts and graduation research.
Furthermore, this study demonstrated that while negotiating norms in relation
to translingual repertories and practices, the students enhanced their sensitivity
to similarity-​in-​difference and difference-​in-​similarity which empowered them toperceive common practice in the process of yielding diverse textual products andidentify the mediated and hybrid nature of standardized products (Canagarajah
2013c: 9). Such translingual competence allowed them to reframe power relations
with others, evaluate situated interactions critically, assess cultural differences ina neutral manner, and discover intercultural commonalities. Their translingual
practices also helped them demonstrate metacognitive skills in reviewing L2 literacy socialization and L1 literacy (re-​)socialization and in re-​positioning themselves in their INoPs and CoPs. After returning to Japan, the participants further
developed hybrid, in-​between, transcultural, and translingual identities and skills
to find new ways of belonging and balance power relations with others (Higgins
2011: 2) and improved translingual literacy to secure economic and academic
interests by using their cultural capital and norms of intercultural interactions in
SA contexts as criteria for evaluating L1 situated interactions.
This study has contributed to expanding research on translingual competence
and power dynamics using LMT in the aforementioned ways. However, future
research needs to collect more comprehensive qualitative and quantitative data on
the processes of students’ language management in situated activities, investment

The investment in managing interests and power289

in literacy practices, and negotiations of power, considering Canagarajah’s(2013a: 2) claim that “translingual literacies are not about fashioning a new kindof literacy but about understanding the practices and processes that already characterize communicative activities in diverse communities.” Particularly, given thatwritten texts have been predominantly analyzed to explore translingual literacy,
greater focus should also be placed on identity, agency, power, and capital throughspoken interactions as in the case of this study.
From a pedagogical perspective, it is implied that home universities should preliminarily scaffold outgoing SA students’ management of various linguistic and cultural contact phenomena by promoting students’ development of interculturality
and translingual practice, based on which they act upon critical awareness of theirown and other academic cultures as well as integrate their L1 rhetorical strengths
into L2. The findings of language management research should also be more thoroughly incorporated into a post-​SA education system so that universities can help
post-​SA students apply cultural capital that they have increased in contact situations to their further study and career development.

References
Blommaert, J. (2010) The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1986) The forms of capital. In J. F. Richardson (ed) Handbook of Theory
and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press, 241–​
258.
Bourdieu, P. (1991) Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Burgat, F. (2003) Veils and obscuring lenses. In J. L. Esposito & F. Burgat (eds) Modernizing Islam: Religion in the Public Sphere in the Middle East and Europe. New
Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 17–​41.
Byram, M. (1997) Teaching and Assessing Intercultural Communicative Competence.
Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Byram, M. (2008) From Foreign Language Education to Education for Intercultural
Citizenship: Essays and Reflections. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Canagarajah, A. S. (ed) (2013a) Literacy as Translingual Practice: Between Communities and Classrooms. New York: Routledge.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2013b) Negotiating translingual literacy: An enactment.
Research in the Teaching of English 48 (1), 40–​67.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2013c) Translingual Practice: Global Englishes and Cosmopolitan
Relations. New York: Routledge.

290

Hiroyuki Nemoto

Darvin, R. & Norton, B. (2015) Identity and a model of investment in applied
linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 35, 36–​
56. doi: 10.1017/​
S0267190514000191.
Darvin, R. & Norton, B. (2016) Investment and language learning in the 21st century. Langage et Société 157, 19–​38. doi: 10.3917/​ls.157.0019.
Dörnyei, Z. (2005) The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences inSecond Language Acquisition. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007) Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dörnyei, Z. (2009) The L2 motivational self system. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda(eds) Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self. Bristol: Multilingual Matters,
9–​42.
Duff, P. A. (2007) Problematising academic discourse socialization. In H. Marriott,
T. Moore & R. Spence-​Brown (eds) Learning Discourses and the Discourses ofLearning. Melbourne: Monash University Press, 1.1–​1.18.
Duff, P. A. (2008) Case Study Research in Applied Linguistics. New York: Routledge.
Duff, P. A. (2010) Language socialization into academic discourse communities. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 30, 169–​
192. doi: 10.1017/​
S0267190510000048.
Duff, P. A. & Anderson, T. (2015) Academic language and literacy socialization forsecond language students. In N. Markee (ed) The Handbook of Classroom Discourse and Interaction. Malden: Wiley-​Blackwell, 337–​352.
Duff, P. A. & Talmy, S. (2011) Language socialization approaches to second language
acquisition: Social, cultural, and linguistic development in additional languages.
In D. Atkinson (ed) Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition.
New York: Routledge, 95–​116.
Haneda, M. (2006) Classroom as communities of practice: A reevaluation. TESOL
Quarterly 40, 807–​817. doi: 10.2307/​40264309.
Higgins, C. (ed) (2011) Identity Formation in Globalizing Contexts: Language
Learning in the New Millennium. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Jackson, J. (2013) The transformation of “a frog in the well”: A path to more intercultural, global mindset. In C. Kinginger (ed) Social and Cultural Aspects ofLanguage Learning in Study Abroad. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 179–​204.
Jernudd, H. B. & Neustupný, J. V. (1987) Language planning: For whom? In
L. Laforge (ed) Actes du Colloque international sur l’aménagement linguistique /​Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Language Planning. Québec: Les
Presses de L’Université Laval, 69–​84.
Kinginger, C. (ed) (2013a) Social and Cultural Aspects of Language Learning in Study
Abroad. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

The investment in managing interests and power

291

Kinginger, C. (2013b) Identity and language learning in study abroad. Foreign
Language Annals 46 (3), 339–​358. doi: 10.1111/​flan.12037.
Kramsch, C. J. (2009) The Multilingual Subject. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kramsch, C. J. (2013) Afterword. In B. Norton (ed) Identity and Language
Learning: Extending the Conversation. 2nd edition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters,
192–​201.
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nekvapil, J. (2011) The history and theory of language planning. In
E. Hinkel (ed) Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning.
New York: Routledge, 871–​887.
Nekvapil, J. (2016) Language management theory as one approach in language
policy and planning. Current Issues in Language Planning 17 (1), 11–​22.
doi: 10.1080/​14664208.2016.1108481.
Nemoto, H. (2004) The cross-​cultural academic communication and study management of Japanese exchange students. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 14(1), 113–​136. doi: 10.1075/​japc.14.1.08nem.
Nemoto, H. (2011) The Management of Intercultural Academic Interaction: Student Exchanges Between Japanese and Australian Universities. Newcastle upon
Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Neustupný, J. V. (1985) Problems in Australian-​Japanese contact situations. In J. B.
Pride (ed) Cross-​Cultural Encounters: Communication and Mis-​Communication.
Melbourne: River Seine, 44–​63.
Neustupný, J. V. (1994) Problems of English contact discourse and language planning. In T. Kandiah & J. Kwan-​Terry (ed) English and Language Planning: A
Southeast Asian Contribution. Singapore: Times Academic Press, 50–​69.
Neustupný, J. V. (2003) Japanese students in Prague. Problems of communicationand interaction. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 162, 125–​143.
doi: 10.1515/​ijsl.2003.033.
Neustupný, J. V. (2004) Theory and practice in language management. Journal of
Asian Pacific Communication 14 (1), 3–​31. doi: 10.1075/​japc.22.2.09neu.
Norton, B. (2000) Identity and Language Learning: Gender, Ethnicity, and Educational
Change. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Norton, B. (2010) Language and identity. In N. H. Hornberger & S. L. McKay (eds)
Sociolinguistics and Language Education. Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 349–​369.
Norton, B. & McKinney, C. (2011) An identity approach to second language acquisition. In D. Atkinson (ed) Alternative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition. New York: Routledge, 73–​94.
Norton Peirce, B. (1995) Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL
Quarterly 31 (3), 409–​430. doi: 10.2307/​3587803.

292

Hiroyuki Nemoto

Ochs, E. (1986) Introduction. In B. Schieffelin & E. Ochs (eds) Language Socialization Across Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–​13.
Prior, M. T. (2011) “I’m two pieces inside of me”: Negotiating belonging throughnarratives of linguistic and ethnic hybridity. In C. Higgins (ed) Identity Formation in Globalizing Contexts: Language Learning in the New Millennium.
Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 27–​47.
Rossman, G. B. & Wilson, B. L. (1985) Numbers and words: Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in a single large-​scale evaluation study. Evaluation
Review 9 (5), 627–​643. doi: 10.1177/​0193841X8500900505.
Schieffelin, B. & Ochs, E. (1986) Language Socialization Across Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zappa-​Hollman, S. (2007) The Academic Literacy Socialization of Mexican Exchange
Students at a Canadian University. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universityof British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Zappa-​Hollman, S. & Duff, P. A. (2015) Academic English socialization throughindividual networks of practice. TESOL Quarterly 49 (2), 333–​368. doi: 10.1002/​
tesq.188.
Zuengler, J. & Miller, E. R. (2006) Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives: Twoparallel SLA worlds? TESOL Quarterly 40 (1), 35–​58. doi: 10.2307/​40264510.

Vít Dovalil

German as a foreign and a minority
language in the light of the interests of social
actors: The case of the Czech Republic
Abstract The chapter aims to analyze the position of German in the Czech Republic in
the light of the interests pursued by various social actors. This issue is interpreted as aprocess as well as a result of language management which is carried out in metalinguistic
discourses. Referring to Language Management Theory, the success of a management
process oriented toward the achievement of specific interests depends primarily onsocio-​economic preconditions. These either determine the possibilities for improving
the position of German in the Czech Republic, or, conversely, they explain why thisimprovement fails to occur. Both quantitative data and individual social actors’ management activities are presented. The interests of selected social actors and their attempts toshape specific social networks to enhance power are in the foreground. Unequal power
relations among actors are hierarchized according to Zhao’s (2011) classification. Difficulties in protecting German as a minority language are interconnected with problems
in teaching German primarily as a foreign language.
Keywords Language Management Theory, organized management, social actor,
interests, German as a minority language, German as a foreign language, Czech Republic

1 I ntroduction
Institutions participating in the discourses on the support of multilingualism (notonly) in the Czech Republic share the opinion that the competences of the majorityof the Czech population in foreign languages—​including German—​is not satisfactory (Dovalil 2018: 277). The most recent Report of the Czech School Inspection, which was issued in March 2018, analyzes the development of language
competences at primary and secondary schools in the school year 2016/​17. It
concludes that although some improvement may have been observed, the levelof competences in foreign languages is not balanced. Generally speaking, theknowledge of German is lower than the knowledge of English. German tends tobe chosen by weaker pupils. Besides this fact, German as the first foreign language
is a rather rare phenomenon and this language is preferred in the regions withmore a problematic social and educational situation (in the regions of Karlovy
Vary and Ústí nad Labem). This goes hand in hand with the specific character ofthese towns—​as a very popular spa and tourist center in the former case, and as
an industrial center in the latter, both towns being located near the border withGermany. The motivation to learn German is nevertheless lower than in the case294

Vít Dovalilof English as well (CSI 2018: 9–​11 and 36–​37; see also CSI 2010). The conclusion of
the recent report states “numerous opportunities” to improve the material as wellas personnel conditions for foreign languages (CSI 2018: 37).
This rather unsatisfactory situation concerning the level of competences in foreign languages also holds for the current situation in most parts of Europe overall,as is stated, e.g., in one of the recent proposals for a Council Recommendation, thepurpose of which is to improve the teaching and learning foreign languages in thewhole EU:The only European Survey on Language Competences (ESLC) that has been carriedout so far revealed a low level of competence in foreign languages. Only 42% of tested
pupils reached the level of ‘independent user’ in the first foreign language, and merely
a quarter of pupils did so in the second foreign language. This means that after several
years of studying at school, the majority of young Europeans are not able to have asimple conversation in the foreign languages they have learned. An additional sourceof concern is that a considerable percentage of pupils—​14% for the first language and
20% for the second—​do not even reach the ‘basic user’ level. (COM (2018) 272 final)1

Concerning the macro level, there are practically no social actors participating inpublic discourses who would be satisfied with the level of competence in foreign
languages and who would argue against the necessity to support teaching foreign
languages. Hence, this broadly shared interest—​as exemplified by the aforementioned quotation—​underlies, and can be transformed into, a general (normative)
expectation, the content of which can be expressed by the simple formulation that
European as well as Czech citizens should possess higher competences in foreign
languages in order to be able to communicate with other people more easily andeffectively.
It follows, logically, that representatives of such institutions as Council of Europe, European Council, European Commission, or the Ministry of Education of
the Czech Republic note apparent deviations from these expectations concerning
the level of foreign language knowledge and evaluate them negatively. Social
actors who share this negative evaluation proclaim that specific adjustments haveto be designed to improve this relatively dismal situation.

1

The ESLC was conducted in 2011, and its findings were published in June 2012. Morerecent data are not available. The level of an independent language user as mentioned
in the citation corresponds to the B-​level of the Common European Framework ofReference, whereas the level of a basic user to the A-​level. Low competences areprojected—​among other things—​into hampered “meaningful exchanges between
public administrations and individuals across borders” as well as into competitive
disadvantages for both businesses and job seekers (COM (2017) 534 final, paragraph3.6). See also COM (2018) 272 final, paragraphs 5 and 8 thereof, and EC & Eurydice(2017: 14–​16).

German as a foreign and a minority language

295

If some criteria should be identified against which the implementation of thesegoals could be measured, then Grin’s concept of the policy-​to-​outcome-​path canbe referred to. Grin (2003: 43–​48) argues with three pillars as basic conditions forlanguage use: capacities, opportunities and desire (or, at least willingness) to use
the language.
Capacities are understood as an adequate degree of linguistic competence,
which is typically raised by means of institutionalized education. Improvement, or
deterioration in this qualitative parameter is measurable by means of tests; specificlevels of these competences are defined by the Common European Framework ofReference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment (CEFR). Once the condition of sufficient capacities is fulfilled, the second factor—​opportunities to use therespective language—​needs to be pursued. This parameter is quantitative in natureand can be measured in terms of time as, e.g., total numbers of hours, during which
a foreign language has been used. It is a relatively private matter and depends onsociocultural, or socioeconomic circumstances. However, provided a state is interested in increasing competences in foreign languages, it should take care of creating such opportunities for its citizens, or remove the respective obstacles. Grin
relates this problem to minority languages, which could be exemplified by Germanin the Czech Republic:[G]‌enuine language vitality goes well beyond strictly private use, and encompasses
the public use of a language. This is where the state often has a crucial role to playthrough its language policies. By creating opportunities for people to use theirlanguage outside of the strictly private sphere, authorities contribute to the supply ofa linguistic environment. (Grin 2003: 43)

The lack of opportunities to use a language obviously contributes to significant
decline in the speaker’s capacities (knowledge). The third pillar, desire/​willingness
to use the language, is empirically observable in language choices. This desire touse a specific language manifests itself when an individual language has to bechosen. As a result of the speaker’s attitude, one of such languages is preferred tothe other by being used in real interactions.
Given these facts and criteria, the following framework research question is
to be analyzed in this chapter: Which social actors behave toward German how,under which circumstances, and with which consequences?

2 M etalinguistic behavior toward German in the Czech
Republic
The behavior of social actors who strive to strengthen the position of German in
the Czech Republic is presented and analyzed on the basis of language management theory (Jernudd & Neustupný 1987; Fairbrother, Nekvapil & Sloboda 2018;
Dovalil 2010, 2018; Dovalil & Šichová 2017; see also the website URL language

296

Vít Dovalil

management). In compliance with this theoretical framework, the following pointsof analysis are in the foreground:
1.	 The subject of the language management is the position of, as well as the competencein, German in the Czech Republic both in terms of German as a foreign language andGerman as a minority language. Although both statuses are relevant as the subject ofpromotion, the former status is more prevalent and better known in public than thelatter. However, these statuses are mixed in some parts of the public discourse.
2.	 In terms of the kind of language management, organized management is primarily analyzed: several institutions̕ management acts are explored, which aretrans-​interactional in nature and contain ideological as well as theoretical elements (Nekvapil 2016: 15). As the processes of interconnecting such acts are traced,emerging networks of social actors trying to enforce the common interests more
effectively are analyzed. They trigger the processes at the macro level, but theyneed to reach the micro level if they are to be considered implemented. Unequal
power relations among the actors can be seen.
3.	 Based on the phases of the language management process, the analysis begins
with the efforts of the social actors to persuade others about the fact that theposition of German is too weak. This interest corresponds to the strategy to makeother actors note a language problem (discursive creation of a language problem)
and to make them evaluate this situation negatively. Depending on accessible data,
this evaluation of the noted deviations from the actors̕ expectations and convenient adjustment designs are in the foreground. Difficulties accompanying theirimplementation are discussed as well. Special attention is devoted to the concerted
efforts aimed at the removal of a discriminatory passage from the Framework Educational Program for Primary Education (hereinafter as Framework Program, or
FEPPE), which prefers English as the first foreign language to all other foreign
languages. Thus, the legislative framework and potential infringement upon international law are also taken into account. This rather defensive position does notentail that German should play a specific role in the Czech educational system.
4.	 As for the levels of language management, sociocultural/​socioeconomic management represents the crucial point. In accordance with the logic of the theory,
this first level of the management processes is decisive to strengthen the position of German in the Czech Republic. The category of success is interpreted
within the interests pursued by the respective social actor. The central interestof the supporters consists in spreading and improvement of the command ofGerman, which reflects linguistic management in the narrow sense at the thirdlevel of language management. What is specific in relation to German in the
Czech Republic in the sociocultural sense is the fact that this language features
a double status, being not only a foreign, but also a minority language. This
clear-​cut double status distinguishes German from other languages.2 When
2

Polish is also a language of a neighboring country, and it is protected and taught as aminority language, but not as a foreign language in the Czech school system. OtherGerman as a foreign and a minority language

297

efforts aiming at improving the proficiency in German are undertaken, it is revealed that the status of German as a minority language could be advantageous
for language management conducted in favor of German as a foreign language
and vice versa.
The empirical part of the research draws upon the data reflecting the current situation of German and other foreign languages in the Czech Republic as well as theactivities of various social actors as they have been carried out over the past two
decades. Data for this chapter are gained from, and correspond to, various formsof metalinguistic behavior (discourses) of selected social actors from which these
actors̕ interests can be derived (Dovalil 2010, 2018).
Social actors as such are identifiable through, and their behavior is observable in numerous discursive activities (Fenton-​Smith & Gurney 2016: 74). Even
though the identification of the actors is somewhat easier in the case of institutions
representing the macro level (when compared with the micro level), they cannot be
captured in their whole completeness anyway. Therefore, certain selection has tobe carried out. Social actors enter the discourse by means of texts which are produced both in spoken and in written language. These thematically relevant texts
were collected and analyzed as parts of trans-​interactional sequences. If possible,
immediate intertextual ties are identified, e.g., direct reactions of one social actor
to the behavior of another one. The time perspective is maintained. This methodological procedure admits that impartiality, or objectivity in the traditional sense
is not always attainable, which applies to every attempt to reconstruct discourses
reflecting differing interests of social actors with unequal power positions.
Similarly to the identification of the actors themselves, the power relations arealso to be derived from the discursive acts (Fenton-​Smith & Gurney 2016: 74, 77).
One of the transparent ways of placing the respective social actor into a hierarchy
draws upon its authorities as they are defined in laws. However, informal aspectsof (soft) power are not neglected.
The discourse on foreign languages allows us to identify the following social
actors which have become involved in influencing the position of German in the
Czech Republic: the Government Council for National Minorities (GCNM), twoGerman minority organizations (Landesversammlung der deutschen Vereine in derTschechischen Republik —​Assembly of German Associations in the Czech Republic,
hereinafter Landesversammlung, and Verband der Deutschen und der Freunde

minority languages such as Vietnamese, Hungarian or Bulgarian are not offered as
foreign languages systematically either. Although Russian is a minority language
as well as a foreign language in the Czech Republic, it is—​unlike German—​neither
a language of a neighboring country, nor a language protected by the European
Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. On the other hand, traditional foreign
languages like French, Spanish, and Italian are offered in the educational system, butthey do not have the status of minority languages in the Czech Republic.

298

Vít Dovalil

deutscher Kultur in der Tschechischen Republik —​The Union of Germans andFriends of German Culture in the Czech Republic, hereinafter Kulturverband), theGoethe Institute in Prague, the Embassies of Germany and Austria, the German-​Czech Chamber of Industry and Commerce (hereinafter as Chamber), the Union ofGerman Philologists in the Czech Republic (Germanistenverband der Tschechischen
Republik in German, hereinafter as Union of German Philologists), and the Ministryof Education, Youth and Sports, including its affiliated organizations (hereinafter
simplified as the Ministry of Education). These social actors are presented throughtheir discursive activities in the following sections. Their differentiation in termsof power is based on Zhao’s (2011: 910–​912) classification in four types, which has
been empirically elaborated on by Fenton-​Smith & Gurney (2016) recently:
1.	 Actors with power are highly placed officials and/​or people holding public
offices. Their power as well as the power of the institutions represented by thesepeople is derived from authorities as they are laid down in legal acts. These
actors are the typical representatives of the macro-​level language management.
In this research, the Ministry of Education, the minister him/​herself, and other
employees authorized to act on behalf of this institution can be referred to.
2.	 Actors with expertise are exemplified by linguists or other professional people
who occasionally become involved in language management processes. Here,
representatives of the Union of German Philologists as well as experts working
for the GCNM can be mentioned.
3.	 Actors with influence are primarily defined by the membership of social elites
in them. This feature also applies to “a wide range of the people who have social
influence because of their knowledge/​skills […] or just the public nature of theircareers” (Zhao 2011: 910). Even though these actors do not possess any direct
decision-​making capacities, they may significantly contribute to convincing
other actors (Fenton-​Smith & Gurney 2016: 82). Projected into the discourse on
German in the Czech context, representatives of the German-​Czech Chamberof Industry and Commerce, both embassies, or of the Goethe-​Institute may be
included.
4.	Actors with interest are defined ex negativo as actors possessing “neither
power nor the personal prestige bestowed on the former three groups” (Zhao
2011: 910). They are situated at the micro level, getting involved rather passively
in language management processes. Being also categorized as “latent actors,”
they are affected by decisions made by more powerful actors, but they may
become more active at specific moments (Bandelow 2015: 312).3 Members of theGerman minority organizations, foreign language teachers as well as individual
pupils learning foreign languages belong to this least powerful group of actors.

3

Both Bandelow (2015), and Zhao (2011) confirm independently that these people’s
behavior has been explored only little so far.

German as a foreign and a minority language

299

3 Th
 e current situation of German and other foreign
languages in the Czech Republic
From the quantitative point of view, the situation of foreign languages in the Czech
Republic has been dominated by English approximately since the second half of the
1990s. The data of the Czech Ministry of Education indicate that whereas around
370,000 pupils were learning both English and German in the school year 1997/​98
at primary schools, the distance between these two most popular foreign languages
increased to half a million by the school year 2010/​11. This difference exceeded
600,000 in the school year 2017/​18. Thus, 4.4 times more pupils are currently learning
English (785,000 pupils in total) than German (176,000 pupils in total) at Czech primary schools. Russian with 52,000 learners comes after German, being followed by
Spanish (6,491 pupils) and French (6,145) in 2018.
No matter how apparent the distance between English and German has becomein the course of the last two decades, German is one of the languages for which aslight increase in interest has been seen since the school year 2013/​14, when a second
mandatory foreign language was introduced. The current number of pupils learning
German corresponds to that as of 2005:

Figure 1: Numbers of pupils learning foreign languages at primary schools
Source: Ministry of Education of the Czech Republic (communication from August 2018)

The proportion of the German language related to the total number of pupils
learning foreign languages has shrunk substantially from a half to less than one
fifth since 1998.4 Whereas the interest in foreign languages was dominated together
4

Looking back over the 1990s, Cink (1999: 29) stated in 1998 that German had held thefirst position since 1990 and had been the most frequently chosen foreign language

300

Vít Dovalil

by English and German back then, Russian has become more visible recently. The
comparison of these proportions reflecting the situation in 1998, 2008, and in 2018is shown in the following table:
Table 1: Proportions of foreign languages at Czech primary schools in selected school
years (%)
Language/​school year

1997/​98

2007/​08

2017/​18

English

49.7

80.4

76.5

French

1

0.9

0.6

German

49.1

17.2

17.2

Russian

0.1

1.2

5

Spanish

< 0.1

0.2

0.6

Italian

0

< 0.1

< 0.1

Source: Ministry of Education of the Czech Republic (communication from August 2018)

The situation at secondary schools reflects the lower total number of pupils
attending this type of school. The distance between English and German amounting
to approximately 220,000 pupils has remained stable since the school year 2013/​14.
The position of German at secondary schools became stabilized at around 160,000
pupils in 2014. Due to the demographic development of the age group of the pupils
at secondary schools, it is not only the total number of those who were learning
German that continued to decrease in the past decade. Correspondingly, the total
number of English learners has dropped from over 436,000 to 380,000 pupils since
2010/​11, as is shown in the following Figure 2:

with 52% proportion at that time. However, English’s proportion had increased from
35% as of 1990/​91 to 45% six years later.

German as a foreign and a minority language

301

Figure 2: Numbers of pupils learning foreign languages at secondary schools
Source: Ministry of Education of the Czech Republic (communication from August 2018)

The segment of specialized post-​secondary schools was introduced into the
Czech educational system in 1996. The total number of students in these schools
has been decreasing for more than a decade, which seems to reflect a specific crisisof this type of schools. It is the only segment in which the interest in German has
also been continually decreasing since 2004. Unlike the secondary schools, no indication of stabilization can be observed yet. In 2018, the total number of German
learners at the post-​secondary schools dropped to one fifth when compared to theschool year 2003/​04 (from almost 15,000 pupils to hardly 3,200). The decrease ininterest can also be seen in the case of English, but this tendency is much less steep(from 17,600 pupils in 2014 to 12,300 in 2018):

302

Vít Dovalil

Figure 3: Specialized post-​secondary schools
Source: Ministry of Education of the Czech Republic (communication from August 2018)4 S
 ocial actors and their interests
The previous sections have provided an overview of the social actors, their power
relations and the statistics from a general perspective. The following sections are
devoted to individual social actors which participate in the discourse on German in
the Czech Republic and realize their interests in it. The first part deals with organizations of the German minority and with conceptual inconsistencies in the statusof German as a minority vs. foreign language. Then, language management acts
conducted by the most powerful actor are analyzed, followed by the activities ofactors with expertise and actors with influence.

4.1 German minority organizations and the Government
Council for National Minorities as actors with interest andexpertise
If we focus on the socio-​cultural context of German, more specific information
should be provided. As stated in Section 2 above, German has not only the statusof a foreign language (along with English, French and some others as presented in
the quantitative overview), but it has the status of minority language as well. This
double status of German has gained higher relevance especially since the Czech
Republic ratified the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (hereinafter as ECRML), which came into force in March 2007 in this country.

German as a foreign and a minority language

303

Since the German minority does not have any political party of its own, theactivities of both German minority organizations concentrate on rather non-​political aspects of social life of their members—​culture, maintaining national
traditions, celebrating national holidays, pilgrimages etc. Both organizations claim
the maintenance of German language and culture as one of their explicit interests.5
The chairpersons of both organizations are members of the GCNM.
This council is one of the advisory bodies of the Czech government. It is composed of 32 members, who represent several ministries (including the Ministry of
Education), the ombudsman, the Association of the Regions of the Czech Republic
as well as fourteen national minorities. It is established on the basis of the Act
on the Rights of National Minorities 273/​2001 Co. as subsequently amended.6 The
main scope of activities of this council is the preparation of materials concerning
the national minorities for the government. It also oversees the obligations following for the Czech Republic from international treaties which have to do withthe rights of national minorities.
Unlike for Polish, there is not any public minority school system with German
as a language of instruction in the Czech Republic. Notwithstanding, peopleinterested in German may potentially profit from private activities provided
by German or Austrian educational institutions in the cities (Prague, Brno) as
well as in the borderlands (in Znojmo, Liberec, and elsewhere). According to
the census conducted in 2011, fewer than 19,000 Czech citizens claimed their
German nationality. The remaining German-​speaking minority was assimilated
in the post-​war period and its settlement is too dispersed to create compact
areas. Moreover, many Germans abandoned the German language as a resultof the process of post-​war controlled assimilation. Hence, apart from families
or other private contexts, the only systematic way of acquiring German is tochoose this language as a first—​if possible—​foreign language in schools within
the public educational system.7
However, conceptual inconsistencies concerning the status of German as aminority or foreign language can be observed in the public discourse. Examples
can be quoted even from reports issued by GCNM. Thus, “Primary School ofCzech-​German Understanding” and “Thomas Mann Secondary School” are mentioned in the Report on the Situation of National Minorities in 2017 (as well as
56
7

The older organization, the Kulturverband, was founded in June 1969. It has around
1,300 members. The Landesversammlung with more than 7,000 members came into
existence in 1991. For more details see the websites URL Kulturverband and URL
Landesversammlung.
The status of the council is available at the website URL GCNM.
For more details concerning the development since the 1990s see Novotný (2015: 31–​34), Nekvapil (2000), Neustupný & Nekvapil (2006), and Ammon (2015: 328–​334). The
most recent data are summarized in the Report on the situation of national minorities
in the Czech Republic in 2017 and in the Report on the situation of national minorities in the Czech Republic in 2018 (see GCNM 2018 and 2019 respectively).

304

Vít Dovalil

in 2018) in ­chapter 8.1 headed “Education in languages of the respective national
minority –​8.1.1 German minority” as schools with German as a language of
instruction (GCNM 2018: 28 as well as GCNM 2019a: 21 respectively). From theconceptual point of view interestingly enough, these schools “nabízí pro české
i německé děti vzdělání a výchovu v 1.–​5. ročníku s němčinou jako jazyk cizínebo mateřský” [offer to Czech as well as German children education with German
as a foreign language or as a mother tongue in the first through the fifth grade](GCNM 2018: 28, italics mine).8 Thus, the status of German as a minority and aforeign language are mixed. This confusion is confirmed on the same page by the
total number of pupils who learned German at Czech primary and secondary
schools in 2017: 331,224 pupils in total are stated, whereas fewer than 19,000 citizens claimed German nationality, as mentioned above. For German as a mothertongue in the context of German as a minority language, surprisingly enough,this Report (GCNM 2018) mentions as a success that a second mandatory foreign
language was introduced in September 2013. However, this fact applies to theeducational system in the whole Czech Republic and has little to do with the titleof the chapter which is supposed to describe the situation of the German minority
itself. Unlike in the older Report covering the situation in 2017, the Report on thesituation in 2018 does not contain any numbers of pupils who learned German.
Only a list of twelve schools remained in which some school subjects were permitted to be taught in German as a foreign language. The other passages are notadapted, they are just left out. Clear information about German as a minority
language is missing. It is symptomatic of this issue that the Ministry of Education
does not fund any programs promoting the education in German as a minority
language (GCNM 2019a: 121–​122). The subsidies amounted to 0 Czech crowns in2018 (GCNM 2019a: 123).9
Similarly, a draft of the Fifth Periodical Report concerning the fulfillment of
the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, which was
issued in March 2019, contains almost the same passages in sections related toGerman. Most information in section headed “German minority schools” concern
German as a foreign language again. The schools listed in this section are the onesin which some school subjects “are permitted to be taught in a foreign language,”which is German in this case (GCNM 2019b: 57). The very loose relation to German
as a minority language is underpinned by a table containing the list of universities
89All translations in this chapter are mine. The same formulation is reprinted in the
newer Report on the situation of national minorities in the Czech Republic in 2018
(GCNM 2019: 21). In the context of the missing public German minority school
system, it is necessary to add that the statistics do not distinguish these two kindsof acquisition of German. Children of German or Austrian citizens who work (temporarily) in the Czech Republic are not differentiated either (expatriates).
This situation is not new. See Cink’s (1999: 36) critical remark concerning “the inadequate promotion of German as a mother tongue” in cases of numerically weakGerman-​speaking minorities.

German as a foreign and a minority language

305

at which German Studies are accredited.10 The Goethe Institute’s cooperation
with the Ministry of Education also has to do primarily with German as a foreign
language, and not with German as a minority language. This mistaken status of
German can be traced back for several years in these reports.
This conceptual confusion also holds for the Fourth Periodical Report (ECMRL),
another document issued by GCNM. Section I. 3. 1., which is devoted to German asa minority language, starts with a statement that German language “may be taught
at primary schools as a first foreign language […]. As of September 30, 2016, 7,582
pupils in total were educated in German as their first foreign language” (GCNM
2017a: 24).11 Furthermore, several primary and secondary schools are listed inwhich “some subjects” are reported to have been taught in German. Strikingly
enough, it is not possible to find out how many children with German as a mothertongue learn German in the public school system of the Czech Republic.
Difficulties in protecting German as a minority language were noted and evaluated negatively by the Council of Europe in December 2015. Its Committee of Ministers recommends, among other things, that the authorities of the Czech Republic[…] 3. adopt a structured policy for the protection and promotion of German […], andcreate favorable conditions for [its] use in public life; 4. take resolute steps to makeavailable teaching in or of German as a minority language in cooperation with the
speakers. (CoE 2015: 1)

Another aspect specifying the sociocultural context of German in the Czech
Republic has to do with geographical closeness to, and strong business ties with,economically strong neighbors (Germany and Austria). German minority organizations as well as numerous local organizations devote systematic attention to Czech-​German cross-​border activities in that they organize trans-​frontier
exchanges and mediate contacts between Czech and German institutions. At themacro level, the most important social actors in this field are the Czech-​German
Fund for the Future and Tandem —​Center of Coordination of Czech-​German Youth
10 This draft is likely to be changed, before the official version is published (personalcommunication with the member of the secretary of the GCNM Renata Weinerová
from March 31, 2019).
11 The content of this quotation according to which more than 7,500 pupils “were educated in German” is not clear enough in this context. Does it mean that German wasused as a regular language of instruction, which would correspond to the status of
the minority language in the school system where the majority language (Czech) istaught as another mandatory school subject? Or rather, does it mean that these pupils
were learning German as the first foreign language, and consequently English as thesecond, Czech being their mother tongue? And do these pupils claim the German
nationality, or rather the Czech one? We can assume that the authors of this passage
are likely to have used these concepts without deeper consideration. However, thisquotation may reflect these experts’ awareness of the extent of language assimilationof the German minority in the Czech Republic.

306

Vít Dovalil

Exchange. These organizations’ activities apply both to German as a minority, andas a foreign language (more information is available at the websites URL Czech-​German Fund for the Future and URL Center of Coordination of Czech-​German
Youth Exchange).

4.2 M inistry of Education as an actor with power
Efforts to support German as well as other foreign languages in the Czech Republic
are determined by legal norms, which are set by the most powerful national
actors—​parliament, government and—​most specifically—​by the Ministry of Education. Apart from legal norms at the national level, international law has also to be
abided by. Management acts by these institutions which correspond to sources oflaw are enforceable by courts. The most relevant Czech source of law setting down
the possibilities for which interests can be achieved (and how) in this field is the
School Act 561/​2004 Co. as subsequently amended.
Before this act—​with the exceptions of some sections—​came into force on January 1, 2005, the issue of preferring English as the first mandatory foreign language
as well as determining English as a mandatory part of the secondary school-​leaving
exam had been discussed. The Ministry of Education had declared this interest as
a priority in its Long-​Term Plan of Education and Development of the Educational
System of the Czech Republic. This extensive and detailed document was issued inconnection with the preparation of the new School Act in March 2002. In a chapter
devoted to quality improvement of foreign language teaching, the ministry defined
the following adjustment plans:
Návrh nového rámcového vzdělávacího programu pro základní vzdělávání počítá sezahájením výuky prvního cizího jazyka od 3. ročníku s průměrnou dotací 3 hodinytýdně […] přednostně by měla být žákům nabídnuta výuka angličtiny; návrh […]rovněž počítá jako s jednou z možných alternativ řešení zahájit výuku druhého cizího
jazyka od 7. ročníku s průměrnou dotací 2 vyučovacích hodin týdně. Nabídnuty byměly být němčina, francouzština, španělština, italština a ruština; angličtina budedruhým povinným jazykem pro ty, kteří nezvolili angličtinu jako svůj první (hlavní)
cizí jazyk. (Long-​Term Plan of Education 2002: 21–​22)[The proposal of a new framework educational program for primary education counts
on the introduction of the first foreign language from the third grade on in an extent
of three lessons a week […] it is English that should be offered to the pupils primarily; the proposal […] also counts on one of the possible alternatives to the solution
to introduce a second foreign language teaching from the seventh grade on in an
extent of two lessons a week. German, French, Spanish, Italian, and Russian should beoffered; English shall be the second mandatory foreign language for those who havenot chosen English as their first (main) foreign language.]

Nevertheless, the final version of the School Act did not lay down any specific foreign language as the first mandatory foreign language in the end. Concerning theGerman as a foreign and a minority language

307

secondary school-​leaving exam, section 78 of the School Act merely mentions “aforeign language” in which pupils have to take this exam.
The language choices are restricted by the condition that this language has tobe taught at the school which the pupils attend. Another restriction follows fromsection 7, paragraph 1 of Regulation 177/​2009 issued by the Ministry of Education,according to which the secondary school-​leaving exams are allowed to be taken
in English, French, German, Spanish, or Russian only (in the order listed in theregulation).
The specific educational goals defined in the School Act are to be achieved bymeans of the Framework Educational Programs related to the pre-​school, primary,secondary, and further education. In this crucial document, details concerning thefirst and second foreign language teaching are contained. The primary education,
during which pupils have to start learning both the first as well as the second foreign language, is the most relevant period for their choices (Dovalil 2018: 290–​291;
Dovalil & Engelhardt 2012). In this respect, the impact of the school curricula onthese decision-​making processes is enormous. It reflects the fact that[l]‌argely reliant on the discourses of compulsory obligation, the site of language education is thought to be the domain that is most susceptible to planning […] where
teachers as professional practitioners are the policy product implementers and thestudents the passive recipients of the package. (Zhao 2011: 914)

Due to this, social actors participating in these decisions pursue their interests toeffectively influence such decisions during this period. The decisions made in thisphase of education usually have far-​reaching consequences for later occupation,
career and business opportunities of the respective person. Just for this reason,a part of language management acts of various social actors concentrates on the
FEPPE (MŠMT 2017).

4.2.1 D iscourses on the first and second foreign language within the
Ministry of Education and its affiliated organizations
The FEPPE is one of the central documents regulating the overt language policy forschools. Its first version was approved in connection with the arising new School
Act in December 2004 and came into force on February 1, 2005. Although the
FEPPE has undergone several reforms since that time, the crucial passage in section 7.2 regulating the foreign language choices has been changed only insignificantly so far. The change affected mere modal verbs of one sentence: Instead of thewording “English must be offered to the pupils primarily” as formulated in the original version, nowadays “English should be offered primarily,” which corresponds
to the wording of the original proposal in the Long-​Term Plan of Education fromMarch 2002 after all.
Moreover, according to section 7.2 of the Framework Program, the following
formulation has remained unchanged from the very beginning of its legal force:

308

Vít Dovalil[…] přednostně by měla být žákům nabídnuta výuka anglického jazyka; pokud žák(jeho zákonný zástupce) zvolí jiný cizí jazyk než anglický, musí škola prokazatelně
upozornit zákonné zástupce žáka na skutečnost, že ve vzdělávacím systému nemusí
být zajištěna návaznost ve vzdělávání zvoleného cizího jazyka při přechodu žáka na
jinou základní nebo střední školu. (MŠMT 2017: 143)12[English should be offered to the pupils primarily; when the pupil (his/​her legal
representative) chooses a foreign language other than English, the school has todemonstrably familiarize the legal representatives of the pupil with the fact that theeducational system does not necessarily provide continuity of the chosen language
when the pupil changes to another primary or secondary school.]This passage has been criticized from several perspectives so far. The Fourth
Periodical Report (ECRML) referred to the objections raised against this clauseby supporters of German as a minority language within GCNM in the fall 2015.
The essence of this critique consisted in the fact that this paragraph discriminates
against all languages other than English, if these languages should be chosen as
the first foreign language (GCNM 2017a: 24). This would potentially break international law (Art. 7, paragraph 2 of ECMRL, Art. 14 of the Framework Convention,
and Art. 25 of the bilateral Czech-​German Treaty) as far as the rights of membersof the German minority are concerned. The reason is that they may feel effectively
discouraged from learning German at least as the first foreign language, having no
positive perspective of uninterrupted German classes.13
In reaction to the interest of the German minority to “remove the discriminatory clause from the Framework Program,” the Ministry of Education missed thetarget by informing the GCNM that
Ustanovení je v rámcovém vzdělávacím programu od roku 2005, a to z toho důvodu,že při přestupu na jinou školu může být problém se zajištěním výuky jiného cizího
jazyka. Počítá se s revizí rámcového vzdělávacího programu zhruba v horizontu dvou

12 This passage corresponds to the wording of the most recent version of FEPPE as ofJune 2017, as well as to the previous versions from 2013 and 2016.
13 According to Art. 7, paragraph 2 of ECRML “[t]‌he Parties undertake to eliminate, ifthey have not yet done so, any unjustified distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference relating to the use of a regional or minority language and intended to discourage
or endanger the maintenance or development of it. The adoption of special measuresin favor of regional or minority languages aimed at promoting equality between theusers of these languages and the rest of the population or which take due accountof their specific conditions is not considered to be an act of discrimination against
the users of more widely-​used languages” (italics mine).
Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities states in its
Art. 14, paragraph 2 that “[…] the Parties shall endeavor to ensure, as far as possible
and within the framework of their education systems, that persons belonging tothose minorities have adequate opportunities for being taught the minority language
or for receiving instruction in this language” (italics mine).

German as a foreign and a minority language309

let. Ministerstvo samozřejmě může zvážit vznesenou připomínku v úpravě příslušných
formulací vztahujících se k výuce prvního cizího jazyka. (GCNM 2017a: 24–​25)[This passage has been a part of the Framework Program since 2005, because problems
with ensuring foreign language teaching could arise when pupils change schools.
A revision of the Framework Program will be taken into consideration in approximately two years. The ministry may obviously reconsider the objection if the formulation concerning the first foreign language teaching should change.]

Overall, this passage has been objected to twice in the GCNM so far. In the firstcase, a representative of the Ministry of Education in the Council rejected theobjections on October 14, 2015:
Formulace v rámcovém vzdělávacím program vychází z prokazatelného dlouhodobého
zájmu zákonných zástupců dětí o výuku anglického jazyka a zároveň zohledňuje fakt,
že anglický jazyk je dnes pro EU lingua franca. […] Co se týče druhé části citace […] ta
je v programech obsažena s cílem chránit zájem žáka při případném přestupu na jinouškolu […]. Formulace zcela jasně dokazuje, že lze zvolit za první cizí jazyk jiný než
anglický. Nelze tedy souhlasit s tvrzením, že jsou cizí jazyky vůči jazyku anglickému
diskriminovány. (GCNM 2015: 6–​7, italics mine)[The formulation of the point [7.2] in FEPPE is based on the long-​term interest of
the legal representatives of the pupils in English and reflects the fact that English is alingua franca in the EU. […] As for the second part of the quotation […] its goal is toprotect the interests of the pupils who want to change to another school […]. The formulation shows clearly that it is possible to choose a first foreign language other thanEnglish. Hence, these other foreign languages are in no way discriminated against
English.]It turned out that the substance of the concept of discrimination was interpreted bythis actor with power in its own way. Consequently, the ministry was not willing
either to discuss this passage, or even to change it.14
This quite evasive attitude of the Ministry of Education dovetailed with its
references to the dominance of English that had become the priority at all stagesof the educational system since 2005. Rather than promoting German, it tried tovindicate its reluctance to negotiate this issue with other social actors as well as
the lack of activities in favor of German. Paradoxically enough, this quotation canbe used as justification of reasons why pupils should not (have or want to) learn
German. Instead of promoting the pupils’ interests to learn this language (as wellas possible), these pupils need to be “protected” from such goals, if they changed
to another school. Needless to say, this “protection” does not apply to any other

14 Further remarks criticizing this issue in terms of discrimination can also be foundin Kreisslová & Novotný (2018: 134–​135).

310

Vít Dovalil

school subjects (sciences, history, geography etc.). The individual rights and needsof members of the German minority were disregarded.
This incentive was repeated on February 16, 2017. The original objections,which had been presented in 2015, were extended by a reference to the Czech-​German Treaty.15 Similarly to the previous situation, the ministry did not note any
deviation from the expectations, which could be derived from the ECMRL, theCzech-​German Treaty as well as the Recommendations of the Council of Europe
from December 2015, and rejected any negotiations. The “protection” argument
was repeated again: “[…] ustanovení je v rámcovém vzdělávacím programu odroku 2005, a to z toho důvodu, že při přestupu na jinou školu může být problém sezajištěním výuky jiného cizího jazyka” [The formulation has been a part of FEPPE
since 2005, because problems in ensuring the classes of the other foreign language
may arise when pupils want to change to another school] (GCNM 2017b: 6–​7). The
status of German as a minority language and the real protection of its members’
rights remained ignored.
The lack of continuity of learning a foreign language other than English may
cause frustration and may discourage many pupils from choosing German (Frenchor Russian) as their first foreign language (Dovalil 2018: 298–​302). This holds evenmore specifically for pupils in the German minority who do not have any possibilities of being educated in German as a language of instruction and who aredemotivated by this situation (Kreisslová & Novotný 2018: 134–​136). Passage 7.2 of
the Framework Program is inconsistent with the necessity of continual language
learning, which represents one of the factors positively influencing successful
language acquisition. Correspondingly, (not only) recent documents issued by theEuropean Commission take this indispensable biographical continuity explicitly
into account:
Biographical continuity means not only that educational institutions should follow
each other in a vertical perspective, for example from pre-​primary to primary to
secondary education, but also that there should be cooperation between different
educational environments where a child participates in each particular phase. (COM(2018) 272 final: 19)

4.2.2 D ifficulties in introducing the second mandatory foreign language
As already mentioned in the statistical overview, the decision to introduce a second
mandatory foreign language came into force on September 1, 2013. Sladkovská &15 Art. 25, paragraph 2 of the Czech-​German Treaty on Good Neighborliness and Friendly
Cooperation from 1992 lays down that “[smluvní strany] vynaloží veškeré úsilí, aby
rozšířily výuku jazyka druhé země na školách a jiných vzdělávacích institucích” [theParties shall make every effort to spread the teaching of the language of the othercountry in schools as well as in other educational institutions] (italics mine).

German as a foreign and a minority language311Šmídová (2010: 2), representing the Research Institute on Education back then, an
organization affiliated with the Ministry of Education, point out that the original
intention to introduce the second mandatory foreign language, which was motivated by the purpose to comply with the European language policy mother tongue+​ two, was going to be implemented as early as 2005. However, this decision was
postponed by six years initially. The authors interconnect this fact with ongoing
discussions about several unresolved parts of the Framework Program at that time.
The most decisive argument against the introduction of a second foreign
language as a mandatory school subject appeared to be the assumption that two
foreign languages would have overloaded weaker pupils. For this reason, thesecond foreign language received the status of elective subject in 2005. This compromise was believed to enable to find a solution by 2011 (Sladkovská & Šmídová
2010: 2). As a part of their analysis, the authors refer to the dominant position ofEnglish, which they explain quantitatively by the introduction of the first mandatory foreign language in the third grade (Sladkovská & Šmídová 2010: 7).
Simultaneously, they also refer to the decrease in the numbers of pupils learning
German. They interconnect the necessity to try to implement the European principle mother tongue +​two with the infrastructure for teaching German existingso far. Besides that, they also mention the factor of neighborhood with German-​speaking countries as well as the tradition of teaching this language in the Czech
Republic. Consequently, they conclude that “[…] jsou zde jasné argumenty, proč byvýuka němčiny měla být na českých školách nabízena a vyučována v plnohodnotnéroli cizího jazyka” [there are clear arguments, why German should be taught
and offered at Czech schools as a fully-​fledged foreign language] (Sladkovská &Šmídová 2010: 9).16
In spite of these arguments in favor of German, removing the obstacles fromthe Framework Program which had been significantly complicating the possibilityof choosing this language as the first foreign language for several years was notconsidered. Similarly, possibilities for strengthening German as a foreign language
by its status as a minority language were also disregarded.
With reference to a survey conducted in 1687 primary schools throughout theCzech Republic in May 2010, i.e., three years before the second mandatory foreign language was introduced, they indicate several advantages of this intended
change: better foreign language competences resulting, e.g., into better opportunities to find employment, advantages for the border regions (which favors particularly German), and higher attractiveness of the respective schools for future pupils
and parents (Sladkovská & Šmídová 2010: 12).
On the other hand, the same two main problems were mentioned as in 2005—​
overloading the weaker pupils as well as the difficulties in ensuring the foreign
language classes. But unlike in 2005, when these assumptions were just stated,
16 This formulation also shows a very defensive position of those who would be willingto support German.

312

Vít Dovalil

the authors put together some counter-​arguments. They point out that learning
foreign languages, mathematics, or sciences are comparably difficult, and thatweaker pupils may have problems in finding employment, in which case at least
some second foreign language skills could be very helpful for them in the end(Sladkovská & Šmídová 2010: 12). Overall, the conclusion of this analysis was
unequivocal: the second foreign language was to become a mandatory school subject from the school year 2012/​13 on. It was to be taught in the seventh, eighth andin the ninth grades, with two lessons a week.
Despite this clear-​cut recommendation, this adjustment plan was implemented
not only yet another year later than originally postponed, but even in a more limited extent, i.e., only from the eighth grade on (Dovalil 2018: 291–​292).
One more strategic document concerning foreign language teaching, the preparation of which began prior to 2005, should be pointed out—​National Plan for
Foreign Language Teaching (MŠMT 2005). Although it also reflected the principle
mother tongue +​two, English was supposed to become the first mandatory foreign
language (MŠMT 2005: 6). German was mentioned twice, in both cases along with
Polish as a language of the neighboring countries. German was not supposed to beallowed to be chosen as the first foreign language on an equal footing with English.
This document was in force between 2005 and 2008, but has not been replaced byany newer strategy since then.17 In the course of this period, the interest in German
suffered a steep drop especially at primary schools and came close to its lowest
values ever as can be seen in Section 3 above.

4.3 A
 ctor with expertise
The Union of German Philologists is one of the social actors with expertise forwhich the interest in promoting German is of capital importance. This organization with around eighty members unites scholars of German philology working
at universities (linguists, literary scientists as well as experts in didactics). It was
founded in 1999.18 Its presidium has regularly discussed this topic in connection
with the applicants for German Studies at the universities in the Czech Republicfrom the very beginning. Decreasing level of the command of German on the partof the applicants as well as their total numbers were regularly observed. Causes ofthis development were sought. More importantly, several members of this Union
possessing expert knowledge in the didactics of German as a foreign language
have been participating in the work of expert boards of the Ministry of Education since the 1990s, including the preparatory works on FEPPE as well as its

17 In terms of Language Management Theory, its content is presented and analyzed indetails in Dovalil (2010).
18 For more details see the website URL Union of German Philologists of the Czech
Republic. Referring to its documents, this organization is abbreviated as UGP in thissubchapter.

German as a foreign and a minority language

313

changes. However, their expertise has not always been influential enough under
all circumstances.
In 2004, a new chairwoman and presidium were elected. Based on the plenary
session of the Union of German Philologists in October 2006, the new chairwoman took the initiative and addressed the Ministry of Education in a seriesof letters, the first of which was sent on March 19, 2007. Noting the deviations
from the expectations as well as negative evaluation of the situation were in theforeground.
In this letter, the presidium wanted to draw minister Dana Kuchtová’s attention to this problem and to get more involved in shaping the conception of foreign language teaching back then. The main interest consisted in maintaining theextent of teaching German at primary as well as secondary schools. Apart fromthe inconvenience to concentrate on English only at the expense of other foreign
languages, the presidium argued with economic aspects as well as with the long-​
standing tradition of teaching German:
Pozice německého jazyka by proto měla být v koncepci výuky cizích jazyků na
základních školách posílena. Je-​li naším cílem úspěšné uplatnění žáků v praxi,
musíme mít na paměti, že německy mluvící země jsou našimi nejvýznamnějšími
hospodářskými a obchodními partnery, kteří jsou ve všech regionech České
republiky zastoupeni řadou firem a kteří v současné době otevírají svůj pracovní trh
pro odborníky nejrůznějších stupňů vzdělání i specializací. Schopnost komunikovatv němčině zvyšuje pracovní konkurenceschopnost absolventů našich škol. Výuka
německého jazyka má přitom u nás dlouhou tradici, o jejíž udržování a rozšiřování
se snaží řada kvalifikovaných učitelů. (UGP 2007: Conception of foreign language
teaching —​request for appointment, March 19, 2007)[Therefore, the position of German in the conception should be strengthened at primary schools. If the successful employment of our pupils is our goal we have to bearin mind that German-​speaking countries are our most important economic partners
who are represented in all regions through many companies, which open the labormarket for experts of various degrees of education and specializations. German skills
increase the competitiveness of our school-​leavers and university graduates. At thesame time, teaching German has a long tradition in our country. Many qualified
teachers strive for keeping and extending this tradition.]

The presidium concluded with a request for a meeting with the minister andpresented its interest to discuss its suggestions to design specific adjustments
related to teaching German in the future. Although this appointment took placein April 2007, no tangible conclusions in favor of German were achieved which
could have been implemented, partially due to the fact that a new minister was
appointed several months later.
The situation repeated itself one year later. The next plenary session of theUnion of German Philologists, taking place in May 2008, charged the presidium
to continue the dialogue with the Ministry of Education to join forces to solve

314

Vít Dovalil

this serious and alarming problem (UGP 2008: The situation of teaching German
at primary and secondary schools—​request for appointment, June 9, 2008). The
presidium pointed out the cultural and historical traditions of German in Central
Europe. Despite these efforts, the FEPPE’s preference of English over all other foreign languages as the first foreign language was not changed.
As the figures shown in Section 3 illustrate the tendencies, the numbers of
pupils interested in German did not stop dropping in 2008. Another new minister of education, Josef Dobeš, was informed about the situation by the Union ofGerman Philologists after its plenary session in September 2010. In its letter from
September 17, 2010, the Union took a stand on a new stage of the discussions about
introducing English as the first mandatory foreign language as well as mandatory secondary school-​leaving exam in this language. In its statement, the Unionof German Philologists was aware of the importance of English explicitly. At thesame time, it argued against further strengthening the position of English in the
Czech educational system. Unlike other foreign languages, the demand for English
would not weaken, rather, it would grow. Moreover,Česká republika by se zavedením angličtiny jako povinného prvního cizího jazyka asoučasným odsunutím zavedení výuky povinného druhého cizího jazyka ještě vícenež dosud vzdálila od principu evropské jazykové politiky označovaného jako 1+​2
(tj. ovládání mateřského jazyka a vyvážená výuka dvou jazyků dalších), který dbá
i na aktivní podporu výuky jazyků sousedních zemí, tj. v případě České republikyněmčiny. (UGP 2010: Statement of the Union, September 17, 2010)[By simultaneous introducing English as the first mandatory foreign language andpostponing the introduction of a second mandatory foreign language, the Czech
Republic would recede from the principle of the European language policy designatedas 1+​2 (i.e., command of the mother tongue and balanced acquisition of two more foreign languages), which heeds active promotion of teaching the neighboring countries’
languages, including German in the case of the Czech Republic.]

The Union presented its persuasion that its remarks and comments would betaken seriously, and offered its experts who would help to implement the principle
mother tongue +​two more efficiently. As for the status of English, we can add that
this language has been introduced neither as a first mandatory foreign language,
nor as a part of the mandatory secondary school-​leaving exam so far.
Representatives of the Union participated in numerous negotiations with therepresentatives of the Ministry of Education in which the introduction of thesecond mandatory foreign language was discussed. This decision was made inJanuary 2013 and came into force on September 1, 2013. Besides the arguments
presented by Sladkovská & Šmídová (2010) in section 4.2.2, and along with otherpredominantly didactic reasons, it was pointed out that English and German areboth Germanic languages, which opens various possibilities of taking advantage ofthe pupils’ competences in English for learning German. Adjustments identifying

German as a foreign and a minority language

315

strategies which would make learning German (L3) after English (L2) easier were
designed. The representatives could refer to running research projects.19
Another aspect, which was noted and perceived as unfavorable in 2014, had to
do with the quality of teaching German. It concerned the education of teachers andtheir qualification as required by section 12 of the Pedagogical Workers Act 563/​
2004 Co. One of the problems was identified in narrowing down the expert component of foreign language teachers’ qualification. The Union of German Philologists
pointed out that foreign language teachers should acquire not only high communicative competence, but also linguistic and literary expert knowledge:
Hluboká znalost a reflexe systému jazyka jsou základním předpokladem pro to, aby bylučitel schopen jednotlivé jevy žákům vysvětlit. Znalost literatury je nepostradatelná
nejen pro chápání kulturního prostředí dané jazykové oblasti a jazyka samotného,
ale i dalších charakteristik jazykového společenství (historie, ideologie, sociálního
prostředí apod.). (UGP 2014: Statement of the Union, October 8, 2014)[Profound knowledge and reflection of the language system are basic preconditions
for a teacher to be able to explain individual phenomena to the pupils. Knowledge ofliterature is indispensable not only for understanding cultural milieus of the respective language area and the language itself, but also other features of the language
community (its history, ideology, social setting etc.).]The Union did not agree to the reduction of the expert qualification to a language
exam at the level C1 according to CEFR. It referred to the fact that it was notclear which institutions’ exams should be accepted. The Union’s interest in
guaranteeing equal qualification of teachers at primary and secondary schools
with those working at language schools which were entitled to grant state exams
was interconnected with difficulties of graduates from master programs in German
Studies in getting adequate jobs in the educational system and with their motivation to study German at the universities. In conclusion of this letter, the chairwoman asked the minister, Marcel Chládek, for a meeting and an opportunity toelaborate on more detailed arguments. Regardless of the above mentioned reasons,the Pedagogical Workers Act has not been amended, which means that foreign
language teachers working for language schools do not have to graduate frommaster programs focused on the respective foreign language.

19 See, e.g., homepage of the project “Multilingualism at Czech schools: learning andteaching German after English” https://​www.muni.cz/​vyz​kum/​proje​kty/​13604?page=​
5. Accessed April 4, 2019. This three-​year-​project was realized between 2011 and2013. Numerous publications concerning various aspects of teaching and learning
German as a foreign language after English are listed there.

316

Vít Dovalil

4.4 A
 ctors with influence
There are some institutions which can be understood as actors with influence inthis context: the German-​Czech Chamber of Industry and Commerce (hereinafteralso as Chamber), the Goethe-​Institute, and the Embassies of Austria and Germany. The Chamber, which was founded in 1993, supports the economic collaboration between German and Czech companies and their business activities bothin the Czech Republic, and in Germany.20 It also provides companies with various
services when they enter the market in the respective country. Its representatives
often take part in meetings which are organized by the Goethe Institute and aim
at the explicit promotion of German. In this context, the Chamber issues reports,taken over by public media, from which the demand for German among German-​speaking employers follows (Dovalil 2018: 289). Generally speaking, availability ofpeople with good knowledge of German is in the economic interest of all actors.
It reduces the unemployment rate on the Czech labor market, and it enables theGerman companies to grow. One aspect of this economic interest consists in
the higher salaries of such employees, which is, however, only a side effect of theeconomic interests of the investors in German-​speaking employees in the Czech
Republic.
According to a survey conducted by the Chamber in 2010, the results of whichwere presented in 2011, almost 93% of German employers took a good command of German by (potential) Czech employees for very important or at least
important. At the same time, the Chamber reported that German-​speaking Czech
employees were not very well available. Only 15% of the companies evaluated thesituation as “good,” whereas 38% as “bad.” For 41% of the companies, the situation
was “satisfactory,” but for 6% entirely “unsatisfactory.” In terms of the tendenciesof the development, the companies did not see any changes (45%), or they saw
even some deterioration (18%). “Some improvement” was communicated by 27%of the companies.
Newer results based on a later comparable survey were presented in 2015.21
Compared to the situation in 2011, the importance of the good command of German
dropped from 93% to 88%, whereas the importance of English for German companies rose slightly from 86% to 89%. The availability of potential employees withgood command of German was evaluated as good by 12% of the companies and as
satisfactory by 40%. The percentage of the evaluation as unsatisfactory remained
the same (6%), whereas the percentage of those who took the availability for bad
increased slightly to 42%. Overall, the situation did not undergo any substantial

20 For more details see the website URL German-​Czech Chamber of Industry and Commerce.
21 A press conference of the Chamber on January 15, 2015, in which the German aswell as the Austrian ambassador took part. The data for this survey were collectedduring the second half of the year 2014. 275 companies were addressed.

German as a foreign and a minority language

317

changes, and no signs of improvement could be observed. Similarly to the Unionof German Philologists’ evaluation, the Chamber also evaluates the situation concerning German in the Czech Republic relatively negatively. However, although
the knowledge of German is definitely advantageous when one looks for a job in a
German or Austrian company, this does not necessarily mean that the lack of thisknowledge would be a serious disadvantage. These companies continue operating
quite well in the Czech Republic anyway.
Not only economic, but also cultural and specific language-​related interests
underlie the activities of the Goethe-​Institute. The most visible management act,
which corresponds to a global adjustment design in favor of German, has become
known as the ŠPRECHTÍME campaign.22 This campaign was unveiled in September
2011 in order to enhance the attractiveness and prestige of German and to pointout the advantage following from the competences in this language. German ispresented as a language bringing an added value if compared with English which
is viewed as obvious.23 Embassies of both German-​speaking neighboring countries
took part in the preparatory work and continue to support it financially. The campaign has been addressing not only schools, but also the public sphere from thevery beginning. Thus, it helps make Czech population note that learning German
might pay off (Dovalil 2018: 293–​294; see also Filipová 2016). Gradually, the campaign got more focused on students of technical disciplines. Since 2014, special
actions designated as “Day with German” have been organized in various regionsof the Czech Republic.
On the level of a declaration, the Ministry of Education also claimed allegianceto this campaign. The former minister Kateřina Valachová welcomed the decisionof both embassies as well as other German, Austrian or Czech institutions to start
this campaign in order to open new opportunities and to help overcome communication barriers between Czechs and their neighbors. In this way, she supported theefforts to strengthen the prestige of German in the Czech Republic.24
One important remark concerning the time context of the beginning of the campaign needs to be added. In September 2011, the Czech Republic had been an EU
member state for seven years. However, the free movement of Czech citizens on
the labor market in Germany and Austria had been permitted for mere four months
back then (since May 1, 2011). This fact appears to be a strong paradox, because
Germany and Austria decided to co-​finance the Šprechtíme campaign on the one
hand, but had been inhibiting the natural demand for German by the restrictionof the free movement for Czech employees on the other. These political acts were

22 See the website URL ŠPRECHTÍME.
23 This is one of the features of the Czech media discourse on foreign languages anyway(Dovalil 2018: 288–​289).
24 Kateřina Valachová served as Minister of Education from 2015 to 2017. Her statement concerning this campaign is presented on http://​www.spr​echt​ime-​datab​aze.
cz/​about/​. Accessed on April 4, 2019.

318

Vít Dovalil

apparently inconsistent with each other.25 These circumstances generate a question
to what extent it would have been more efficient for German from a long-​term
perspective to allow the Czech citizens to work in Austria and Germany than toco-​finance the campaign.

4.5 I nterconnecting activities in favor of German
Attempts to interconnect the activities in favor of German could be traced throughvarious management acts, although no explicit and systematic plans to coordinate“a coalition for German” had been made before. Despite the fact that the processes
as they are described in this section are primarily seen from the perspective of theUnion of German Philologists, other perspectives are not neglected.
Representatives of this Union have always been conscious of the fact that theyshould address other institutions and find out their attitudes toward German. In
this way, partners were supposed to be identified who could potentially help tointensify the efforts to make the problem more visible. Noting, rather negativeevaluation of the situation, and designing adjustments were supposed to be taken
into account.
Economic interests related to the level of the knowledge of German underlie theactivities conducted by the German-​Czech Chamber of Industry and Commerce.
The above mentioned press conference aiming at the presentation of the results of
its survey was coordinated with the German and Austrian embassies. Representatives of the Goethe-​Institute also participated in this press conference. Apart fromthe data related to the underused potential of German for Czech employees, theŠprechtíme campaign, organized by the Goethe-​Institute, was commented on. Austrian ambassador pointed out significant advantages of German for career and job
opportunities. As stated by the representatives of the Chamber, more than 6,000
German and Austrian companies created over 150,000 jobs in the Czech Republic.
The sector of science and technical innovations is included. Hence, the great
demand for employees does not meet the adequate supply, which slows down theeconomic growth of the whole country in the end.
Regular communication also takes place between the embassies and the Unionof German Philologists. Representatives of the Union are invited on the occasionof various anniversaries, which makes discussions about this issue possible.26
In spite of the clear interest of both embassies in improving the knowledge ofGerman in the Czech Republic, the representatives of the embassies are aware of

25 As for English, neither Great Britain, nor Ireland introduced restrictions of this kindin May 2004.
26 The most recent meeting of the representatives of the Union with the German ambassador in Prague took place on July 11, 2018, the last meeting with the Austrianambassador on November 7, 2018. Unfortunately, a complete list of such meetings
is not available.

German as a foreign and a minority language319

the political background and many historical interconnections, which make direct,
or even offensive actions in favor of German delicate. As the representatives of theembassies emphasized it during a meeting in July 2012 (Austrian Embassy) or in
March 2012 (German Studies Students’ conference Pragestt at the Faculty of Arts
in Prague), this very political issue would have to be worked through by the Czech
side itself, because imposing German on the Czech population was unthinkable.27
The historical burden as a part of the sociocultural management still impedes atleast a part of management activities in favor of German. Therefore, the promotionof German in terms of promoting partnership was said to have always been in theforeground.28
One member of the presidium of the Union of German Philologists participatesin the activities of the GCNM. Through this simultaneous membership, both bodies
can be mutually informed, which is particularly valuable in terms of the information flow from the German minority to the Union and vice versa. Based onthese contacts, one of the vice-​presidents of the Council for National Minorities
arranged a meeting with representatives of the Ministry of Education and a representative of the Union of German Philologists, which took place at the ministry
in January 2019. Possibilities for removing the passage 7.2 from the Framework
Program as a part of its next revision related to better protection of the German
minority were discussed. This protection was interconnected with easier identification of schools which would be willing to guarantee teaching German as thefirst foreign language and to cooperate with other schools in which continuity ofteaching this language would be assured. This adjustment design was based on
the assumption that easier availability of such information about where German(as a foreign language) is taught continually would support stronger interests inGerman on the part of members of this minority as well. They would not have tofeel discouraged from acquiring this language.29

27 My personal communication with the then Austrian ambassador in Prague FerdinandTrauttmansdorff and with one of the then representatives of the German embassy
Thomas Motack. Both confirmed that their embassies (had) communicated with the
Ministry of Education and consulted the situation of German in the Czech Republic.
These consultations depended in no way on the cooperation with the Union ofGerman Philologists.
28 This aspect of language “partnership” is discussed by Krumm (1999: 42–​45). He also
places emphasis on the strategy according to which the promotion of German has
to be based on cooperation on both sides and to reflect the concept of helping thepartner to help himself (“Hilfe zur Selbsthilfe” in German original, Krumm 1999: 47).
29 However, one of the representatives of the Ministry of Education referred to thepotential danger which would consist in removing the second mandatory foreign
language from the Framework Program (instead of strengthening it). Such a stepwould obviously exacerbate the situation of German (personal communication with
the Secretary of the Ministry of Education Jindřich Fryč in January 2019).

320

Vít Dovalil

No matter how much information may be shared among the participating social
actors, their activities have not been coordinated yet. Similarly, the general interest
in increasing the competence in German is likely to be too vague and would need
to be specified in clearer goals.

5 C onclusion
The basic interests underlying the management acts as they are carried out by
the respective social actors can be summarized as follows: the Union of German
Philologists, an actor with expertise, expresses its existential interest in supporting
German, because one whole academic discipline—​the German Studies, i.e., activities of experts in German linguistics, literary science as well as didactics—​dependson (very) good level of competences in German on the part of at least some groupsof the Czech population. Similarly existential in nature are the interests of theorganizations of German minority. Though their leaders also act in some cases as
people with expertise, most members of this minority belong to the less influential people with interest. Primarily economic interests are observed in the case ofGerman-​Czech Chamber of Industry and Commerce. In spite of economic advantageousness of German skills, the behavior of a part of the Czech population reveals
that the real economic incentive to learn German seems to be smaller than it isusually claimed in public discourses conducted by this social actor. Culture-​related
as well as economic interests are important for the embassies and the Goethe Institute. German courses supplied by the Goethe Institute must meet the adequate
demand, if, e.g., long-​term activities in culture are supposed to be financed. For the
Ministry of Education, no comparable interest can be derived from its activities.
The analysis shows that the organized language management in favor ofGerman in the Czech Republic is generated by shared deviations from several
social actors’ expectations (largely actors with expertise and actors with influence), which consist in better and much more widespread command of Germanin this country. Activities carried out by the institutions from the macro level arein the foreground. The expectations are based on socio-​economic arguments, according to which it pays off to be able to speak German in terms of career andemployment. However, these deviations are not shared by many individuals on
the micro level, which hinders the management process at early stages. Thus, thepromotion of noting the problem within the Šprechtíme campaign has not brought
any substantial impact. The deviations from the expectations are noted and evaluated apparently negatively by the Union of German Philologists, German minority
organizations, Goethe Institute, the German-​Czech Chamber of Industry and Commerce as well as by the embassies of both German-​speaking neighbors of the Czech
Republic. Clear interests in as high level of the knowledge of German as possible
are presented in numerous discourses which underlie the adjustment designs.
One part of these adjustments has to do with looking for partners, whichappears to help to achieve one of the clearly identifiable goals—​removal of thediscriminatory clause from the Framework Program which makes the choice ofGerman as a foreign and a minority language

321

German as the first foreign language in the Czech school system quite difficult andinconvenient. If teaching German is not ensured continually, then pupils interested
in German may feel discouraged from choosing this language as their first foreign
language, which may have adverse impacts on the maintenance of German within
the German minority in the end. This is an attempt to manage one of the sociocultural circumstances more favorably for German, first. The GCNM and the Assemblyof German Associations in the Czech Republic were identified as suitable partners,
because several references to potential inconsistencies with international law appear apparent. Hence, the status of German as a minority language could help
improve the situation of German as a foreign language. This sociocultural management is followed by the communicative management, which goes hand in handwith looking for opportunities to use German in such social networks, in which
the demand for German reproduces itself. The labor market is such a segment.
A somewhat less clear position can be observed in the case of the Ministryof Education. This social actor also shares the basically negative evaluation ofcompetences in foreign languages as outlined above, but unlike those actors, no
specific interest in German is present. Rather, a distinct preference for English
continues. Attempts to make the ministry remove, or change the wording of, thediscriminatory clause in section 7.2 of the Framework Program, which would enable to choose German as the first foreign language more easily, have not beensuccessful so far. On the other hand, after the delay from 2005, a second foreign
language was introduced as a mandatory school subject in 2013, which has hada favorable impact on German since that time. The ministry does not reflect thestatus of German as a minority language thoroughly and, basically, evades thecriticism raised by the Council of Europe in this point. Symptomatically, the ministry does not fund any program for teaching German as a minority language. As
shown in its reactions to objections presented within the GCNM, it keeps insisting
on restrictions of the choices of the first foreign language instead, as they havebeen laid down in the Framework Program from the very beginning. Hence, thisFramework Program rather reduces the opportunities as well as the desire andwillingness to learn and to use German (the second and the third pillar of Grin’s
policy-​to-​outcome-​path).30 On the other hand, some declarations explicitly oriented

30 Concerning this issue, I take advantage of the last possibility of updating some
important details. Ultimately, in a revised version of the Framework Program as ofJanuary 2021 (coming into force on September 1, 2021), the ministry relinquishedthe discriminatory clause from section 7.2 as it is discussed above in part 4.2.1(MŠMT 2021: 149). However, this section continues to discriminate between a foreign
language (meaning de facto a first foreign language) and another foreign language,
which preserves hierarchical relations. The languages categorized as another foreign language are listed quite explicitly: German, French, Spanish, Italian, Russian,
Slovak, Polish, or yet another foreign language. Schools must offer English at least
as another foreign language to pupils who did not choose it as a foreign (=​their first322

Vít Dovalil

in favor of German can also be found, e.g., the support of the Šprechtíme campaign.
However, such non-​binding declarations are inconsistent with the legally binding
legislative framework and do not correspond to the practices carried out so far.
The other part of the adjustments concerns the didactics and teaching German interms of the linguistic management in the narrow sense (third level). In this point,
the ministry has always acted more cooperatively. It cooperates with the Goethe
Institute as well as with several experts from the Union of German Philologists.
However, as long as the management activities concentrating on this third levelhas been impeded by quite unfavorable socio-​cultural management at the very
first level for two decades, the situation has not improved.
Regardless of the fact that implementation of this extensive organized language
management could not be analyzed in this chapter in detail, the continuing dissatisfaction with the situation on the part of most of the analyzed organizations
makes the interpretation plausible that previous cycles of the German-​related management processes have rather failed so far. This is at least partially explainable byreference to the initiation of the processes on the macro level against the will of
the micro level. This means that—​from the global point of view—​the management
process has finished in the phase of negative evaluation. This fact confirms thehierarchization of social actors in terms of their power, because the actors withexpertise as well as those with influence are less powerful than the Ministry of
Education, which is classified as the central actor with power.
Although some partial adjustment designs have already been implemented(the most visible of them being the introduction of the second mandatory foreign
language), some others have not. In a very general respect, a specific adjustment
design could potentially consist in involving even more powerful social actors—​such as courts—​in the solution to language problems. As the problematic point 7.2of the Framework Program appears to have been inconsistent, e.g., with Article 7,
Paragraph 2 of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages it could
have been checked by a court, because legal regulations such as the Framework
Program, whose legal force is lower than law, must obviously comply with nationallaws and—​even more—​with international treaties (ECRM or the Czech-​Germanbilateral treaty). A judgment in a legal dispute would help clarify to what extent
pupils claiming German nationality and being interested in German are entitled tofeel discouraged from choosing this language at least as their first foreign language
when no school system with German as a language of instruction exists. This judgment would enrich the current discourse and would take a prominent position
in it in terms of its power. It would have to be abided by all other social actors,
including the Ministry of Education.

foreign) language. It is not clear to what extent this simple revision will impact foreign language teaching. This change has not been publicized yet and may remain
unknown for the general public. Nevertheless, one formal obstacle impeding the
choice of German as the first foreign language no longer exists.

German as a foreign and a minority language

323

Related to Zhao’s (2011) hierarchization in terms of power, a superordinate category could be added, or some specification within the group of actors with power
could be carried out when the position of courts is considered. The differentiationof the position of the people with expertise depends on contexts and on their discursive acts. Once they act as individuals their position corresponds to that of thepeople with interest, operating more actively as latent actors at specific moments(Bandelow 2015: 312). Only their affiliation with institutions (not necessarily solely
the Union of German Philologists, but also with the respective university or faculty) bestows the second highest status on them.
Several examples of discrepancies and inconsistencies within various social
actors’ efforts to strengthen German are exemplified: Although both Germany,
and Austria supported the Czech Republic’s accession to the EU in May 2004, they
did not allow Czech citizens to move freely in their labor markets and insistedon this restriction for as long as possible. Similarly, the Czech (oslovak) government made the Treaty on Good Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation withGermany, according to which German as well as German Studies were supposed
to be supported in the Czech Republic, without satisfying the expectations of these
actors.

Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the European Regional Development Fund-​Project“Creativity and Adaptability as Conditions of the Success of Europe in an Interrelated World” (No. CZ.02.1.01/​0.0/​0.0/​16_​019/​0000734) and by the Charles University
project Progres 4, Language in the shifting of time, space, and culture. Thanks are
due to the editors of the volume for their valuable comments on various versionsof this chapter. Thanks are also due to members of the presidium of the Union ofGerman Philologists, the chairwoman Lenka Vaňková as well as Hana Andrášová
and Věra Janíková for sending me valuable data.

References
Ammon, U. (2015) Die Stellung der deutschen Sprache in der Welt [The Positionof the German Language in the World]. Berlin, Munich & Boston: Walter deGruyter.
Bandelow, N. C. (2015) Advocacy coalition framework. In G. Wenzelburger &R. Zohlnhöfer (eds) Handbuch Policy-​Forschung [Handbook Policy Research].
Wiesbaden: Springer, 305–​324.
Cink, P. (1999) D-​A-​
CH: Sprachförderung und Zusammenarbeit aus
mitteleuropäischer Perspektive [Germany-​Austria-​Switzerland: Language promotion and cooperation from Central-​European perspective]. In H.-​J. Krumm(ed) Sprachen –​Brücken über Grenzen. Deutsch als Fremdsprache in Mittel-​und324

Vít Dovalil

Osteuropa [Languages –​Bridges over Borders. German as a Foreign Language
in Central and Eastern Europe]. Vienna: Eviva, 26–​38.
CoE (2015): Recommendation 5 of the Committee of Ministers on the applicationof the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages by the Czech
Republic. On WWW at https://​www.coe.int/​t/​dg4/​educat​ion/​minl​ang/​Rep​ort/​
Reco​mmen​dati​ons/​Cze​chCM​Rec3​_​en.pdf. Accessed April 4, 2019.
COM (2017) 534 final: Communication from the Commission to the Council andthe European Parliament. Boosting growth and cohesion in EU border regions.
EC Brussel, September 20, 2017. On WWW at https://​eur-​lex.eur​opa.eu/​legal-​cont​ent/​en/​TXT/​?uri=​CELEX%3A5201​7DC0​534. Accessed April 4, 2019.
COM (2018) 272 final: Commission staff working document accompanying the document proposal for a Council recommendation on a comprehensive approach to
the teaching and learning of languages. EC Brussels, May 22, 2018. On WWW at
https://​eur-​lex.eur​opa.eu/​legal-​cont​ent/​EN/​TXT/​H TML/​?uri=​CELEX:5201​8SC0​
174&from=​EN. Accessed April 5, 2019.
CSI (2010) Tematická zpráva –​Souhrnné poznatky o podpoře a rozvoji výuky cizích
jazyků v předškolním, základním a středním vzdělávání v období let 2006–​2009[Thematic report –​Summarized findings on the support and development offoreign language teaching in the pre-​school, primary and secondary education
between 2006 and 2009]. On WWW at http://​www.csicr.cz/​cz/​85027-​podp​ora-​a-​roz​voj-​vyuky-​cizic​hjaz​yku. Accessed April 4, 2019.
CSI (2018) Rozvoj jazykové gramotnosti v základních a středních školách veškolním roce 2016/​2017 [Development of language literacy in primary and secondary schools in the school year 2016/​2017]. On WWW at https://​www.csicr.
cz/​getatt​achm​ent/​0806b​65c-​19c4-​40e4-​b8c0-​abd33​5308​886/​TZ-​Roz​voj-​jazyk​
ove-​gram​otno​sti-​v-​ZS-​a-​SS-​2016-​2017.pdf. Accessed April 4, 2019.
Dovalil, V. (2010) Sind zwei Fremdsprachen in der Tschechischen Republik realistisch?
Zu den aktuellen Problemen der tschechischen Spracherwerbsplanung [Aretwo foreign languages in the Czech Republic realistic? On the current problemsof the Czech acquisition planning]. In U. Ammon, J. Darquennes & S. Wright(eds) Sociolinguistica 24 (Foreign Languages in Schools of the European Union).
Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter, 43–​60.
Dovalil, V. (2018) Qual der Wahl, or spoiled for choice? English and German as the
subject of decision-​making processes in the Czech Republic. In T. Sherman &J. Nekvapil (eds) English in Business and Commerce: Interactions and Policies (=​English in Europe 5). Berlin & Boston: Mouton de Gruyter, 276–​309.
Dovalil, V. & Engelhardt, O. (2012) Die gegenwärtige Situation des Deutschen in derTschechischen Republik: Qualitative Forschung an Schulen [The Contemporary
Situation of German in the Czech Republic: Qualitative Research at Schools].
An Unpublished Research Report. Praha: Česko-​německý fond budoucnosti/​Czech-​German Fund for the Future.

German as a foreign and a minority language

325

Dovalil, V. & Šichová, K. (2017) Sprach(en)politik, Sprachplanung undSprachmanagement [Language Policy, Language Planning and Language Management]. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.
EC & Eurydice (2017) Key Data on Teaching Languages at School in Europe. On
WWW at https://​op.eur​opa.eu/​en/​publ​icat​ion-​det​ail/​-​/​publ​icat​ion/​73ac5​ebd-​
473e-​11e7-​aea8-​01aa7​5ed7​1a1/​langu​age-​en/​for​mat-​PDF. Accessed April 4, 2019.
Fairbrother, L., Nekvapil, J. & Sloboda, M. (2018) Methodology in language management research. In L. Fairbrother, J. Nekvapil & M. Sloboda (eds) The Language
Management Approach: A Focus on Research Methodology. Berlin: Peter Lang,
15–​39.
Fenton-​Smith, B. & Gurney, L. (2016) Actors and agency in academic language
policy and planning. Current Issues in Language Planning 17 (1), 72–​87.
Filipová, M. (2016) Šprechtíme –​Eine Kampagne zur Förderung der deutschen Sprache
und Kultur in der Tschechischen Republik [Šprechtíme –​A Campaign Promoting
the German Language and Culture in the Czech Republic]. Jena: Friedrich-​
Schiller-​Universität. Unpublished Master Thesis.
Grin, F. (2003) Language Policy Evaluation and the European Charter for Regional or
Minority Languages. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Jernudd, B. H. & Neustupný, J. V. (1987) Language planning: For whom? In
L. Laforge (ed) Actes du Colloque international sur l’aménagement linguistique /​Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Language Planning. Québec: Les
Presses de L’Université Laval, 69–​84.
Kreisslová, S. & Novotný, L. (2018) Between language revitalization and assimilation: On the language situation of the German minority in the Czech Republic.
Journal of Nationalism, Memory & Language Politics 12 (1), 121–​139.
Krumm, H.-​J. (1999) Die deutsche Sprache –​eine Brückensprache für Mittel-​und Osteuropa? [German language –​a bridging language for Central andEastern Europe?] In H.-​J. Krumm (ed) Sprachen –​Brücken über Grenzen.
Deutsch als Fremdsprache in Mittel-​und Osteuropa [Languages –​Bridges overBorders. German as a Foreign Language in Central and Eastern Europe].
Vienna: Eviva, 39–​51.
MŠMT (2005) Národní plán výuky cizích jazyků [National Plan for Foreign
Language Teaching]. On WWW at http://​www.syka.cz/​files/​nar​odni​_​pla​n_​vy​
uky_​ciz_​jaz.pdf. Accessed April 4, 2019.
MŠMT (2017) Rámcový vzdělávací program pro základní vzdělávání [Framework
Educational Program for Primary Education]. On WWW at http://​www.msmt.
cz/​file/​43792/​. Accessed April 4, 2019.
MŠMT (2021) Rámcový vzdělávací program pro základní vzdělávání [Framework
Educational Program for Primary Education]. On WWW at http://​www.nuv.cz/​
file/​4982/​. Accessed February 25, 2021.

326

Vít Dovalil

Nekvapil, J. (2000) On non-​self-​evident relationships between language and identity: How Germans do not speak German, and Czechs do not speak Czech.
Multilingua 19 (1/​2), 37–​53.
Nekvapil, J. (2016) Language management theory as one approach in language
policy and planning. Current Issues in Language Planning 17 (1), 11–​22.
Neustupný, J. V. & Nekvapil, J. (2006) Language management in the Czech Republic.
In R. B. Baldauf & R. Kaplan (eds) Language Planning and Policy in Europe. Vol.
2: The Czech Republic, The European Union and Northern Ireland. Clevedon, Buffalo & Toronto: Multilingual Matters, 16–​201.
Novotný, L. (2015) German language and German minority. Annual of Language &Politics and Politics of Identity IX, 23–​42.
Sladkovská, K. & Šmídová, T. (2010) Souhrnná analýza k postavení dalšího cizího
jazyka u nás a v Evropě [Summarized Analysis of the Position of the Additional
Foreign Language in Czechia and in Europe]. Prague: VÚP.
Zhao, S. (2011) Actors in language planning. In E. Hinkel (ed) Handbook of
Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. Vol. 2. New York &London: Routledge, 905–​923.

Other documents and reports
Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. On WWW at https://​www.coe.int/​en/​web/​com​mon-​europ​ean-​framew​
ork-​refere​nce-​langua​ges. Accessed April 4, 2019.
Dlouhodobý záměr vzdělávání a rozvoje výchovně vzdělávací soustavy České
republiky (pro oblast předškolního, základního, středního vyššího odborného adalšího vzdělávání), březen 2002 [Long-​Term Plan of Education and Development of the Educational System of the Czech Republic (for Pre-​School, Primary,Secondary and Further Education), March 2002]. Praha: MŠMT.
European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. On WWW at https://​rm.coe.
int/​CoER​MPub​licC​ommo​nSea​rchS​ervi​ces/​Dis​play​DCTM​Cont​ent?doc​umen​tId=​09000​0168​0695​175. Accessed April 4, 2019.
Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. On WWW at
https://​rm.coe.int/​CoER​MPub​licC​ommo​nSea​rchS​ervi​ces/​Dis​play​DCTM​Cont​
ent?doc​umen​tId=​09000​0168​00c1​0cf. Accessed April 4, 2019.
GCNM (2015) Zápis z jednání Rady vlády pro národnostní menšiny 14. října 2015
[Protocol from the Meeting of the Government Council for National Minorities,
October 14, 2015]. Praha: Úřad vlády ČR.
GCNM (2017a) Čtvrtá periodická zpráva o plnění závazků vyplývajících z Evropské
charty regionálních či menšinových jazyků v České republice [The Fourth Periodical Report on Fulfilment of Obligations Following from the European Charter ofRegional or Minority Languages in the Czech Republic]. Praha: Úřad vlády ČR.

German as a foreign and a minority language

327

GCNM (2017b) Zápis z jednání Rady vlády pro národnostní menšiny 16. února 2017
[Protocol from the Meeting of the Government Council for National Minorities,
February 16, 2017]. Praha: Úřad vlády ČR.
GCNM (2018) Zpráva o situaci národnostních menšin v České republice za rok 2017
[Report on the Situation of National Minorities in the Czech Republic in 2017].
Praha: Úřad vlády ČR.
GCNM (2019a) Zpráva o situaci národnostních menšin v České republice za rok 2018
[Report on the Situation of National Minorities in the Czech Republic in 2018].
Praha: Úřad vlády ČR.
GCNM (2019b) Pátá periodická zpráva o plnění zásad stanovených Rámcovouúmluvou o ochraně národnostních menšin podle článku 25 odstavce 2 této Úmluvy.
Pracovní verze, březen 2019 [The Fifth Periodical Report on Fulfilment of Principles Laid Down by the Framework Convention for the Protection of National
Minorities. Draft, March 2019]. Praha: Úřad vlády ČR.
German-​Czech Chamber of Industry and Commerce (2011) Průzkum Česko-​německé obchodní a průmyslové komory: Využívání cizích jazyků ve firmách[Survey of the German-​Czech Chamber of Industry and Commerce: Employing
Foreign Languages in Companies]. Praha: DTIHK.
German-​Czech Chamber of Industry and Commerce (2015) Průzkum Česko-​německé obchodní a průmyslové komory: Využívání cizích jazyků ve firmách[Survey of the German-​Czech Chamber of Industry and Commerce: Employing
Foreign Languages in Companies]. Praha: DTIHK.
Union of German Philologists (2007) Letter “Conception of foreign language
teaching –​request for appointment,” March 19, 2007.
Union of German Philologists (2008) Letter “Situation of teaching German at primary and secondary schools –​request for appointment,” June 9, 2008.
Union of German Philologists (2010) Letter “Statement of the Union of German
Philologists of the Czech Republic on the planned changes in foreign language
teaching in the Czech Republic,” September 17, 2010.
Union of German Philologists (2014) Letter “Statement of the Union of German
Philologists of the Czech Republic on the current changes in the education offoreign language teachers,” October 8, 2014.

WebsitesCenter of Coordination of Czech-​German Youth Exchange (Tandem) URL: www.
tandem-​org.cz
Czech-​German Fund for the Future URL: www.fondbudoucnosti.cz
European Survey on Language Competences URL: http://​ec.europa.​eu/​dgs/​education_​culture/​repository/​languages/​library/​studies/​executive-​summary-​eslc_​
en.pdf328

Vít Dovalil

German-​Czech Chamber of Industry and Commerce URL: https://​tschechien.ahk.
de/​Government Council for National Minorities (GCNM) URL: https://​www.vlada.cz/​
assets/​ppov/​rnm/​Statut_​narodnostni_​mensiny_2018.pdf
Kulturverband URL: http://​www.kulturverband.org/​?page_​id=​20&lang=​deLandesversammlung der deutschen Vereine in der Tschechischen Republik
URL: http://​www.landesversammlung.cz/​de/​Language Management URL: languagemanagemen.ff.cuni.czŠPRECHTÍME URL: homepage http://​www.goethe.de/​ins/​cz/​prj/​jug/​spr/​udp/​
de8128950.htm
Union of German Philologists of the Czech Republic URL: www.svazgermanistu.cz

Chikako Ketcham

Non-​Japanese business people’s use
of Japanese language in their workplacein Japan
Abstract In the midst of concerns about the declining birthrate and aging population, foreign human resources have been increasing in Japan. Yet, communication with Japanesebusiness people (JBP) in the workplace has become an issue when employing and retaining
foreign personnel in Japanese companies. Although some Japanese companies that havetaken the helm in the global market have implemented language policies that have changed
the official language of their companies to English, the effectiveness of the language use in
the workplace remains unclear. This chapter, aiming at examining the Japanese language
use of non-​Japanese business people (NJBP) from their perspective, presents the findings
from interviews with six NJBP working in different linguistic environments in Japan, such
as Japanese companies that predominantly use Japanese language, Japanese companies thathave changed their official language to English, and multinational foreign capital companies. The focus of the analysis were the NJBP’s interests behind their language use. The
results show that NJBP use Japanese language depending on their own interests regardlessof the corporate language policies or Japanese sociocultural norms. Furthermore, the study
reveals that the language adjustment of the NJBP influences the power relations between
JBP and NJBP.
Keywords language management in the workplace, non-​Japanese business people, power
relations, business efficiency, communication in the workplace

1 I ntroduction
It is widely acknowledged that, amid the globalizing economy, it is of the utmost
urgency for Japanese companies to secure competent non-​Japanese human resources as businesses face the challenges of an aging population coupled with abirthrate in decline. According to Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication(2019), the working age population (15–​64 years old) in Japan as of October 2019was 75,072,000, a decrease of 379,000 from the previous year. The working-​age
population peaked in 1995 and had declined by 12.5% by 2019. In October 2019, theworking-​age population’s share of the total was 59.5%, the lowest since comparable 1950, and this decrease is expected to accelerate further. On the other hand,the number of foreign workers as of October 2019 was 1,658,804, a 13.6% increase
from the previous year, the highest on record since the notification of foreign

330

Chikako Ketcham

employment status became mandatory in 2007 (Ministry of Health, Labor andWelfare 2019).1 In the intensified competition to hire competent human resources
due to a worldwide labor shortage, the retention of non-​Japanese business people(NJBP)2 in Japanese companies is very low. Moreover, Japanese corporations areclearly less popular than other foreign capital corporations in Japan among foreign university graduates from Japanese universities (Ministry of Economy, Tradeand Industry 2016). To improve the low retention rate of NJBP in Japanese companies, the Japanese government has called for the transformation of the current
Japanese human resource management, where performance-​based evaluations are
not transparent and compensation is largely seniority-​based.
However, according to a large-​scale survey targeted at the management ofJapanese companies conducted by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare to
study the actual state of accepting NJBP in Japanese companies, the highest percentage of respondents, 29.5%, answered that they had problems with NJBP’s
Japanese language skills, followed by 19.5% who answered that they had concerns
about NJBP’s communication with Japanese employees (Ministry of Health, Laborand Welfare 2015). Successful communication relies on the mutual efforts of bothparties. In Japanese companies, however, the NJBP who are unable to adapt to thecommunication norms held by Japanese business people (JBP) are considered tobe the subject of the amendments. Furthermore, even though the Japanese companies are concerned with the Japanese language proficiency of their non-​Japaneseemployees, there are few companies that support NJBP by offering adequate
Japanese language training (Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare 2015).
Meanwhile, since 2010, Japanese companies cultivating global markets havebeen clueing into the economic trends in expanding the scope of procurement of
raw materials, labor, and financing as well as accelerating the speed of doing so.
Some of the major Japanese companies have been shifting the corporate language
from Japanese to English for business efficiency. While there is controversy overthe pros and cons of adopting English as a corporate language in Japanese multinational companies, it is allegedly good news for NJBP, and especially for those
whose communication ability in Japanese language could be problematic (Norisada2012). Some Japanese companies which adopt English as their corporate language(CECLs) are enhancing their English language training programs to improve theemployees’ TOEIC scores among their own ranks. CECLs measure employees’
12Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication (2021) showed the confirmed data
as of June 2021. The working-​age population in Japan was 74,096,000. The working-​
age population’s share of the total was 59.1%. Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare(2021) announced the number of foreign workers as of 2020 was 1,724,328, a 4%
increase from the previous year. The increase was limited due to the immigration
control under the COVID19 pandemic.
In Japanese human resource management, foreign workers are categorized as ‘non-​Japanese.’ This article defines foreign white-​collar employees with full time employment as NJBP.

Non-Japanese business people’s use of Japanese language

331

TOEIC scores as a criterion to assess the improvement of their global businessefficiency. Economic expansion influences companies’ language policies. However,corporate language policy is a mere principle for information sharing in English,
and does not always reflect actual language use, which is in fact very often the
result of the negotiation of the concerned parties.
While the world faces a wave of globalization, there are countries that are trying
to reduce immigrants, prioritizing the local language skill over core business competency as a means of employment migration exclusion (Canagarajah 2017). On
the other hand, in order to address the problem of a declining population, Japan isentering a period of increasing the number of foreign people and hiring more foreign talents in business. These two attitudes toward foreigners seem to be pullingin opposite directions, but both share the common interest of securing the necessary number of immigrants for their own countries. Japan was initially unwillingto accept foreigners other than tertiary educated ‘highly skilled foreign personnel,’but as of April 2019 it started accepting overseas workers undertaking simple
labor under an amendment to Japan’s Immigration Control Act. The Japanese government has announced that it has no plans to implement further immigration
measures in Japan, but it is becoming increasingly possible for foreign workers
except for those who are low-​skilled laborers, to obtain permanent residency(Nakamura 2020).
Hence, in order to live and work together in Japanese workplaces, it is essential
to develop effective and collaborative language policy by studying not only thehost country’s perceptions, but also NJBP’s perceptions of the language use. To thisend, this article aims to examine the NJBP’s interests in using Japanese languagein the workplace. If communication problems with NJBP exist in workplaces, it
is essential to study how NJBP use and manage language(s) (cf. Neustupný 1995).

2 C ommunicationat work
The Japanese government and companies in Japan have been trying to increase thenumber of NJBP in the past three decades. This section reviews the past researchstudying how Japanese language has been used at work in contact situations.
Firstly, we review the historical setting confirming the power of economic trends
behind the increase of the number of NJBP in Japanese companies. Secondly, wemove into the literature review investigating the Japanese language use of NJBP
at workplaces where Japanese language was predominantly used in contact situations. Lastly, we consider the findings regarding the language use of NJBP in multilingual workplace environment, including CECLs, foreign capital multinational
companies, and Japanese companies located outside of Japan.

2.1 I ncrease in foreign workers behind Japan’s economic trend
From the late 1980s to the early 1990s, due to the growing labor shortage in the corporate sector under the bubble economy of Japan, the number of foreign workers

332

Chikako Ketchamincreased in line with the increasing internationalization of Japan’s economy andsociety. The appreciation of the yen and the widening of economic disparities withneighboring Asian countries had increased the benefits of labor migration acrossnational borders. On the other hand, a large number of illegal aliens working in thefield of unskilled labor became a problematic issue in Japan.
The Japanese government revised the Immigration Law adding the ‘TechnicalIntern Training Program’ in 1993 for an official aim to train technical skills to foreign trainees during the training period. However, in fact, out of those TechnicalTrainees, 40% were international students from developing countries working as
part-​timers and technical interns, many of whom had been forced to engage inillegal and stressful work (Nishinippon Shimbun 2018). Thus, the training program
has been provided not for the foreign trainees but as a means for the Japanese
economy to compensate for the most recent shortage of simple labor.
Since 2010, facing the growing competitions in global markets, the interests ofJapanese companies to procure talented employees who can successfully work inthe market have increased. In order to attract competent workers from overseas,
the Japanese government amended Japan’s immigration law. In 2015, a new residence status, ‘Highly Skilled Specialist,’ was introduced to expand the range ofworking type from ‘Management,’ which was previously defined as tied to foreign
capital companies, to ‘Management and Administrations’ which are not tied toforeign capital. Hence, a foreign employee has just recently come to be considered‘officially’ as a ‘Highly Skilled Specialist’ in a management or administration position in Japanese companies.
It has been common for NJBP to hold managerial positions in foreign capitalcompanies, but in Japanese companies, NJBP have been treated as specialists who
generally need the supervision of Japanese management. In the analysis done by
the Cabinet Office of the Japanese government (2019), NJBP in Japanese companies
have not been regarded as human resources who can replace JBP, but as complementary resources, and have been accepted when there is a need to perform tasks
that make use of foreign people’s unique skills.
In the future, the amendment of the ‘Management and Administrations’ inJapanese capital companies is expected to increase career opportunities for NJBP
to gain managerial power in Japanese companies.

2.2 Communication in Japanese monolingual workplaces
With an increasing number of NJBP holding positions such as specialists, engineers, and managers after the mid-​1990s, quantitative surveys on Japanese language
usage by NJBP have taken into account the level of their Japanese language proficiency. Those surveys had targeted both JBP and NJBP to examine how NJBP use
Japanese language in communication with JBP within their workplaces. Sei (1998)
conducted a quantitative survey among seventy-​seven NJBP who had advanced
Japanese language skills and used mostly Japanese language in their workplaces
and sixty-​
five JBP who had been communicating with NJBP in Japanese inNon-Japanese business people’s use of Japanese language

333

forty-​three companies (thirty-​four Japanese capital companies and nine foreign
capital companies) in Japan. The results revealed that both JBP and NJBP had beenfinding many barriers in the Japanese language skills of the NJBP. The JBP considered the main barrier to be in the NJBP’s lack of ability to use the Japanese
language appropriately depending on situational context. On the other hand, the
NJBP had great psychological difficulties in dealing with the prejudices of the JBP
who insisted all the problems in communication were caused by NJBP. The mostdifficult communication for the NJBP was ‘stating their own opinions to JBP.’ As aresult, Sei (1998) asserted the importance of improvement in the working environment of Japanese companies to accept Japanese speaking NJBP. Using a quantitative survey targeting hundred NJBP who used Japanese language in both Japaneseand foreign capital companies, Kondo (2007) revealed the psychological difficultyof Asian business people working in Japanese companies where JBP imposed
Japanese sociocultural norms on the Asian business people. In the workplaces
where Japanese is predominantly spoken, NJBP experienced difficulty in sociocultural or sociolinguistic aspects of the Japanese language, such as, stating theirown opinions to JBP, using the appropriate honorific forms, and in listening to
JBP’s opinions without expressing counterarguments. Along with the increase of
NJBP in Japanese companies, a qualitative case study examined Chinese businesspeople’s attitudes towards conflicts with JBP in Japanese companies. Tachikawa(2013) conducted semi-​
structured interviews targeting four Chinese businesspeople asking about their strategies how they dealt with intercultural conflicts that
arose in the workplace. The results suggested ‘avoidance’ and ‘accommodation’
were the most commonly used as effective strategies, influenced by workplace
factors such as the lower positions of the Chinese business people as a subordinate
or a linguistic/​cultural minority.
Meanwhile, the Cabinet Office (2019) summarized current research data doneby public sectors and showed that the biggest problem of employment of NJBP
is ‘Japanese language proficiency of NJBP’ followed by ‘inappropriate communication skills of the NJBP with JBP.’ The results of study are the same as thoseof Sei (1998) introduced above. Thus, the issue of intercultural communication
between NJBP and JBP has remained unresolved in Japanese companies for at least
twenty years.

2.3 L anguage use in multilingual workplaces
Studies on Japanese language usage by both NJBP and JBP in a branch/​subsidiary of Japanese companies located outside Japan have been conducted since 2000s
when Japanese companies started transferring their production sites. Aibara (2009,2012) shows that due to the lack of English proficiency, Japanese expatriates using
the Japanese language in their workplaces in Hong Kong avoided expressing theirdissatisfaction with the Japanese proficiency of their Chinese subordinates inorder to encourage them to continue using Japanese when speaking with them.
Kubota (2013), studying the language use of both Japanese expatriates and Chinese

334

Chikako Ketcham

employees in the Japanese subsidiaries in China, reports that Japanese subsidiaries
were supporting Japanese language training for Chinese employees who haveworked for the company for a long time in order to secure excellent Japanese
speakers in their companies, since skilled multilingual Chinese business people
tend to move to Euro-​American companies. The above-​mentioned papers suggestthat outside of Japan, the low English proficiency of JBP influenced the language
adjustment of JBP towards NJBP as well as the power relations between NJBP
and JBP.
Until the 2010s, in the vast majority of Japanese companies, Japanese was thecommon language used in the workplace and so there were few papers studying
Japanese language use within the multilingual environments of Japanese companies. Morita (2018) points out that CECLs were studied only from the viewpointof Japanese human resources management and English education. Norisada (2012)
criticizes the papers studying CECLs for focusing only on the controversy overeconomic efficiency and the influence of English language education of JBP. The
efficiency of English as a lingua franca in Japanese companies depends on theemployees’ English proficiency and the actual use of English at work. However,Kubota (2016) and Amelina (2010) suggest that the efficiency is questioned when amajority of employees are from non-​native English-​speaking countries, or when atype of work or an industry doesn’t require English language competence.
On the other hand, studies on NJBP who work in the Japanese branches of European capital companies, culturally and linguistically diverse workplaces, indicatethat NJBP’s language choice depends on the topics of communication and power
relations between the opposing parties even though a multinational corporation
may lay down an explicit official language policy (Fairbrother 2015a, 2015b).
Fairbrother (2015c, 2018) conducted semi-​structured and interaction interviews
with three multilingual employees working in subsidiaries of the separate three
European capital multinational companies to examine the language practice of theemployees in the workplace. The results point out that the employees’ practices
were seen not only in use of language varieties such as hybrid or pidginizedlanguages but also in ‘multiform’ practices applied to sociolinguistic and sociocultural practices, which were influenced by the hierarchical power structureof the workplace. In multinational companies, contention about language is notjust about the issue of language choice, but also about how language is used
(Fairbrother 2015c, 2018).
“Interests are aspirations for a certain state of affairs that is favorable to thesubject. Power operates on interests. Power is the capacity to implement one’s
interests” (Neustupný 2002: 3). This statement aptly applies to institutional discourse which is controlled by power holders (Fairclough 1989). Fairclough focusedon the critical language study raising the awareness of ‘language in its social context,’ stating that “nobody who has an interest in modern society, and certainly
nobody who has an interest in relationships of power in modern society, can afford
to ignore language” (1989: 3). When we study the communication of NJBP withinNon-Japanese business people’s use of Japanese language335

the workplaces, it is important to investigate the hidden power behind the communication.
Since the 1990s, globalism has encouraged the development of multilingual
business environments in Japan, increasing the number of CECLs in the interestof economic efficiency. However, studies show that choice of language in CECLs
depends upon the interests of the interlocutors (Bargiela-​Chiappini & Nickerson
2003). For example, Amelina (2010), who studied multilingual practices of highly
qualified eighteen transmigrant professionals during their stay in Germany, points
out certain types of motivation behind the professionals’ language choice suchas network building, personal relationship maintenance, career development,
and conflict management. The highly qualified professionals use not only English
language as a special purpose register as the linguistic repertoires of internationally working professionals, but also their own mother tongue for network building,and the host language for an instrument against power imposition and exclusionfrom the host country (Amelina 2010).
In summary, the studies on employees’ language management outside ofJapanese companies go beyond the choice of language and examine language strategies which applied to new power relations. However, the prior studies focusing
on the NJBP’s use of the Japanese language limited their scope to the Japanese
linguistic environment, and few of them studied more complex linguistic environments, such as those involving multiple languages at CECLs, or of multilinguals
in multinational companies in Japan. It is therefore necessary to expand the scope
when studying how NJBP use language and languages at workplaces in Japan.
In addition, in Japanese workplaces where JBP are the majority, it is crucial toexamine the adjustment of the interactions from the NJBP’s viewpoint to better
understand their interests as well as the underlying power relations. As Nekvapil
and Sherman (2009) claim, if an individual reiterates certain management strategies in daily interactions and such strategies are generalized among individuals on
the micro level, it could be a starting point for organized language managementof the company on the macro level, which provides a frame for language management and its implementation within the company in general.

3 M ethod
The data used in this study was collected between February and August 2016
and in March 2019. The data collected in 2016 consist of interviews with elevenforeign business people in total. Each interview was approximately 90 minutes
long and combined the methods of a semi-​structured and an interaction interview (Neustupný 2003). The aim of the interviews was to find out about the ways
in which the interviewees communicate in Japanese language at work and theinterests that they were following when in the course of their language management. The interviews were divided into four stages: first, the purpose of theresearch was explained to obtain the understanding and cooperation of the interviewee; second, the interviewee was asked to report the events in a short period

336

Chikako Ketchamof time (15–​30 minutes) of the day; third, the interviewee was asked to describe
details of the interaction such as what purpose, to whom, what type of situation,or how they felt after the interaction. Finally, the interviewer elicited the behavior
and awareness of the interviewee after the interaction, and provided the hypothesis
held by the interviewer to the interviewee to ascertain the interviewee’s responses.
The interviews were mainly conducted by interaction interview. And only when
the interviewees had referred to some past event did the interview switch to asemi-​structured one to ask about past events. The interaction interview aims at
capturing an act of interaction as much in its original form as possible and canprovide in-​depth insights into the actor’s perceptions (Muraoka 2002). In order toobtain as accurate information as possible, the interviewees were asked to report
events or interaction that occurred on the same day of the interview.
The six participants whose cases are discussed in this study were selected as
representing NJBP using Japanese language in their workplaces in Japan. All the
six NJBP have high to intermediate Japanese language proficiency. Prior to theinterviews, the interviewer, a tester for oral proficiency interview by the American
Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages, assessed the NJBP’s Japanese proficiency levels as shown in Table 1. The interviews with the NJBP were conductedin Japanese, except for AM2 who spoke mainly in English. As of August 2016, theworking period of each NJBP in the company varied from 2.5 years to 4 years.
Out of the six NJBP, five NJBP were working in multilingual working environments including CECLs and one business person was working at a Japanese capital company where Japanese language is the only language being used among theemployees within the company. After the interview, the information on the NJBP’s
companies such as a company policy understood by the employees as the corporate philosophy was collected from the company’s information site to study the
corporate culture in which the NJBP were working.
Follow-​up surveys were conducted in March 2019 by email to update the career
status of interviewed NJBP. Out of six interviewees, three continued developing
their careers in the same companies, as shown in Table 1. The other three left
Japan. One of them (TM5) was working in the same company’s head office in the
US. The other two quit the Japanese company and returned to their home countries. The follow-​up survey also asked the three NJBP who decided to remain in
Japan what they considered to be the successful factors for their career in Japan.

337

Non-Japanese business people’s use of Japanese language

Table 1: Participant profile as of August 2016 and March 2019
Interviewee VF1

AM2

IM3

CF4

TM5

CF6

GenderFemaleMale

Male

FemaleMale

FemaleNationality

Vietnamese American Indian

ChineseTaiwanese Chinese

1st Language Vietnamese English

Malayalam Mandarin English

Mandarin

J-​Proficiency A-​high

I-​midA-​midA-​midA-​midA-​midPeriodb

4 years

3 years

4 years

3 years

4 years

2.5 years

Environment CECL

CECL

CECL

Mono

Multi

CECL

Capitald

JapaneseJapaneseJapanese

American JapaneseAmerica

Same

Same

AmericaacJapanese

Employmente SameChina

a Japanese language proficiency: A-​high (Advanced-​high); A-​mid (Advanced-​middle); I-​mid(Intermediate-​middle)
b Period of employment as of 2016c Linguistic environment of the workplace: CECL (multilingual using English as a ‘common
language’ and Japanese language); Mono (monolingual); Multi (multilingual)d Capital of the company: Japanese (Japanese capital company); American (American capital company)e Place of employment as of 2019: Same (employed by the same company as in 2016 andstaying in Japan), America, China

The collected data was analyzed based on Language Management Theory (LMT)(Jernudd & Neustupný 1987). The target of LMT is to scrutinize one’s behaviors
towards language and particularly the processes underlying how one can conceptualize language and interactional problems and how one tries to remove them.
The interactions of NJBP at workplaces in Japan mostly occur in contact situations
between speakers from different cultures which studies using LMT often concern
themselves with. LMT focuses on the norms of the actors, which are the prerequisite for the process of language management to occur. When there is a deviationfrom the norm, the actor noted it as a deviation, evaluated it negatively, and thena plan is made for adjusting the evaluated deviation (problem). Finally, as the next
process, the adjustment is implemented. The LMT is an essential theory to investigate an interaction of a non-​Japanese business person in contact situations such as
what kinds of events or issues they perceived as a problem, how they behaved toremove the problem, and how they evaluated the adjustment.
In order to analyze the language management of NJBP in the workplace, eventsand incidents that NJBP noted as deviations from their norms were extracted fromthe transcribed data for closer study. Then the process of language management
by NJBP—​how they noted and evaluated problems, formulated adjustments, andimplemented them—​was examined in each case. The extracted data that NJBP noted
as deviations were categorized based on a framework of behavior classification in

338

Chikako Ketcham

contact situations (Neustupný 1995) into sociocultural, sociolinguistic (communicative), and grammatical (linguistic) behaviors. Focusing on language variations
such as a language choice or a way of speaking categorized as the sociolinguistic
behavior (communicative management), the extracted data were examined to see
how NJBP made their adjustment by noting a deviation, under what circumstances,and to whom the adjustment was implemented, and by what expected norms andmotivating interests the adjustment was influenced.
Nekvapil (2009) states that one of the merits of LMT is its continuous interestin the interplay of simple and organized management as a ‘language management cycle.’ When interlocutors do not solve problems by themselves, they turnto professionals to solve the bigger problems. In these cases, several features needconsideration in the context of organized management, such as social networks,company policy, or government policy, etc. In addition to the extracted data, eachof the NJBP’s companies’ information, such as corporate policy, number of NJBP
in the department of the NJBP, was studied to check the consistency of power relations between NJBP and the company the NJBP worked for.
Moreover, the extracted data was analyzed to see why and how NJBP evaluatedtheir language management after implementing the adjustment. Kimura (2014)
emphasized the importance of process after an implementation of the adjustment
in language management as a cyclical process. If a problem is not removed, thelanguage management will be repeatedly practiced within a language management
cycle for long time. Therefore, the analysis focuses on the reason of the adjustment
as a motivating interest of the NJBP when they use Japanese language, as well as
the evaluation of the adjustment post-​implementation.
The following two research questions will be discussed. First, what are theinterests that compel NJBP to implement the adjustment in Japanese language,
whom do they serve and why? Second, what kind of power relations underpin theinterests of NJBP to implement the adjustment in Japanese?

4 N
 JBP’s interests in using Japanese
The language adjustments of NJBP were observed in three domains of interest: (1)utilizing their Japanese language skills for time efficiency and other work-​related
goals; (2) developing open communication; and (3) fostering informal in-​group solidarity. This section will also discuss the power relations operating behind NJBP’s
interests in their language use.

4.1 Time-​efficiency and other work-​related goals
In monolingual Japanese companies, using Japanese in the business setting is standard among employees, regardless of their nationality (Morita 2018). Hence, there
are few opportunities for tertiary skilled NJBP to be highly evaluated by the companies. On the contrary, Japanese language proficiency of NJBP is assessed by themonolingual Japanese companies as an incomplete level for accomplishing theNon-Japanese business people’s use of Japanese language

339

business task. In other words, the Japanese language proficiency of the NJBP ismeasured in terms of how far it is inferior to the standard level of native speakers
of Japanese (Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare 2015). Meanwhile, in CECLs,
three NJBP that were interviewed for this study admitted to switching fromEnglish to Japanese to achieve their business goals when speaking with JBP in
short business meetings where time efficiency was their top priority.
The excerpt presented in Example 1 describes an informal negotiation between
NJBP and JBP in CECL over language competency of JBP. As a planner of sales
promotions, VF1 routinely holds half-​hour-​long meetings about four times a day tosell promotional ideas to other departments. If her plan is adopted by her in-​houseclients, her performance will be evaluated as an achievement. In the meetings, sheneeds to negotiate with Japanese managers from other departments who are thedecision-​makers on her proposals. When the senior JBP started speaking English
in the meeting, VF1’s language management was not in line with the company’s
language policy which stipulates English as corporate language.
Example 1
すごい向こうから英語で喋ってくれたんですけど、ま、ちゃんとした英語じゃなくて、なんか片言だったら、ちょっといらいらするというか。何言いたいか分からないときは、日本語でやってくれた方がいいんじゃないのかなと思います。「日本語でいいですよ。」とか。あんまりミーティングの時間、
長くないじゃないですか。その気を遣う時間とか、余裕がないです。向こうは多分、「あ、そうですかね。日本語でもいいですか。」とか、なんかすごく嬉しそうに言ってくれて。その後は日本語でやってくれました。 (VF1)[He spoke to me in English, but, hm, not proper English. Well, if their English is bad,I get, like, irritated. When I don’t understand what they want to say, I think it may
be better for them to use Japanese. So I said something like, “In Japanese is fine.” Themeeting is not that long, right? I don’t have time to consider his feelings or something. He said quite happily something like, “Oh, is that so? You don’t mind doing itin Japanese?” After that we spoke Japanese.]

VF1 noted the English skills of the JBP, whose job rank was some levels higher,
as a deviation from her communicative norm of an efficient exchange of information and made a negative evaluation. Then she planned an adjustment to switch
the meeting language from English to Japanese. After successfully implementing
the plan, she re-​evaluated her interaction positively, describing that the Japanesemanager seemed happy about it. The process of her language management reveals
a power shift being generated in the CECL workplace. Despite the advantageous
position over the non-​native-​Japanese-​speaking employee, the Japanese manager follows the lead of the lower-​ranked non-​Japanese employee to hold themeeting in Japanese, against the corporate language rule. The power impositionof a Japanese native speaker over a non-​native Japanese speaker does not exist
here. Instead, a foreign worker with high Japanese language proficiency is taking
the initiative over a Japanese native speaker in Japanese to serve her interests. In

340

Chikako Ketchama short meeting, VF1 chose Japanese to get her business done succinctly. Moreover, another dimension of power seems to back up her decision. The company inwhich VF1 works has been officially announcing corporate concepts for ways towork successfully. One of the concepts reflects the policy of the company whichprioritizes time efficiency and emphasizes the speed of actions. For example, iturges the employees to “Accomplish in one month what it takes other companies a year to do, because we can only win by being many times faster than ourcompetitors.” VF1’s language practice seems to be affected by the corporate ideology to prioritize time efficiency, which suggests, on the one hand, that NJBP may
seek to increase opportunities to utilize their advanced Japanese language skills,
and on the other hand, that JBP may lose opportunities to improve their English
skills. Consequently, it may increase the language skill divide. In response to thequestion from the interviewer as to whether she feels that speaking with JBP in
Japanese robs the JBP of opportunities to practice English in CECL, VF1 made acomment about the JBP who accepted the language switch.
Example 2
多分、その人たちも、何回もそういうミーティング、参加したことありますので。私たちじゃなくて、他の部署の人に、同じことあると思いますので、逆に違和感とかないですね。多分、全員、違和感とかない。(VF1)[They have probably also participated in such meetings many times, not with us,
but with other [foreign staff] in other departments, so I think, as they have similar
experiences, on the contrary, they do not feel discomfort or whatever. Probably no
employees feel any discomfort about it.]

VF1 justified her language management as common practice, even suggestingthat all employees feel that speaking Japanese with JBP is the right solution, since
everyone acknowledged the JBP’s low proficiency of English would prevent JBP
from accomplishing their professional tasks and would shake JBP’s authority. VF1
used Japanese in her meeting with the Japanese manager for the sake of her own
business goal as well as because of the manager’s low English proficiency.
The following excerpt explains the interest of a non-​Japanese business person
who is a native English speaker. It paints a similar picture to the examples
presented above, whereby his language management operates for the sake of similar interests in a daily business meeting. In AM2’s department, he is the only
foreigner out of twelve employees. His department was holding daily meetings to
exchange information about twelve employees’ schedules and work progress. At
the morning meeting on the same day of the interview, the facilitator, a Japanesesupervisor, was conducting the meeting in a mixture of Japanese and English as
usual. But when AM2 took his turn to explain his schedule and information, hestarted speaking in Japanese from the beginning. In response to the question fromthe interviewer as to whether it is easier for AM2 to communicate in English with
his Japanese colleagues rather than in Japanese, AM2 replied as shown below.

Non-Japanese business people’s use of Japanese language

341

Example 3
Well, some people, for example, in my group, cannot speak English very well at all.
And for those people, I think I should speak Japanese, because I need to communicate with them. And even the people who cannot speak English very well, we end up
speaking in Japanese, an, just because it’s easier to communicate yeah. (AM2)AM2 noted his Japanese colleagues’ low English proficiency as a deviation,
because he could not communicate with them, designed the adjustment to switch
the meeting language from English to Japanese, and implemented his adjustment
even though his Japanese boss and colleagues were speaking English during themeeting. AM2 described his Japanese boss and colleagues as ‘some people’ to generalize AM2’s language management to switch to Japanese in daily meetings. He
also added his language switch to Japanese with other JBP outside of his department as a common practice.
The folowing example details an interaction between an Indian manager and aJapanese subordinate in the department meeting at CECL. IM3 has sixteen multinational subordinates and among those, one Japanese subordinate does not have sufficient English proficiency for communicating. IM3 described the situation when
he had implemented the language switch into Japanese only for this Japanese subordinate against the company language policy to hold meetings in English.
Example 4
顔っていうか、あの人が理解してないみたいな、分かるので大体。みんなが、こうやってる人達と、すっごく画面だけ見ている人達とか。画面は英語で書いてあるから、日本人も英語は一応読めるんですけど。私、言ってること、ま、アクセントから問題があるかもしれないけど、言ってることが分かってないのかなと思うので、一応、聞いてみました。「分かりましたか。」って聞いて。皆の前で言えないかもしれないから、「なんとなく分かりました。」って言ったら、その「なんとなく」でも、私、もう1回、日本語で説明したんです。あの、私として、その人が理解してもらいたいので、言語として、どっちでもいいかなと思います。(IM3)[Through his facial expression, I kind of gathered he didn’t understand. There werepeople who were doing this, and there were people who were just looking at thescreen. English was displayed on the screen, so Japanese people can at least read
English. But I thought he—​maybe because of my English accent—​did not understandwhat I was saying, so, I asked him just in case, “Did you understand?” He answered,“I more or less understood.” He might have not been able to answer the question in
front of everyone, so even though his response was ‘more or less,’ I explained it again
in Japanese. Well, as far as I am concerned, I want him to understand, so I feel like itdoesn’t really matter which language I use.]

IM3 noted a deviation from a Japanese subordinate who only looked at the monitor screen without looking at him when he was conducting a visual presentation
in English. He noted the subordinate’s lack of eye contact as a deviation, assuming

342

Chikako Ketcham

his speech in English was not understood by the Japanese subordinate. IM3 evaluated the eye movement of his subordinate negatively, and designed the adjustment
to ask his Japanese subordinate at the end of the English presentation whether
he understood. After implementing his adjustment, he noted the response of the
JBP as another deviation, and evaluated it negatively, assuming the JBP did notcompletely understand what he had said. Then, he designed the adjustment to reiterate what he had said in Japanese. For the purpose of managing his department
to achieve the business goal, he implemented his own language management for
his Japanese subordinate by breaking the official meeting rule. IM3 used Japanese
language in his own interest in managing his Japanese subordinate, who was ten
years older than him. Through his use of Japanese language, he has gained power
to manage his multinational department as well as developed his professional
career as an IT manager in a Japanese capital company. As of April 2019, IM3 hasbeen assigned a higher position in the same company to manage many more multinational employees.
Corporate culture, which prioritizes time efficiency and goal achievement, gives
power to NJBP to take leadership and switch the meeting language to Japanese tocompensate for the low English proficiency of JBP. The power of the ‘common’language rule of CECLs has been weakened due to the fact that employees choose
Japanese over English for the sake of better business efficiency. It also confirmsthat language choices in the workplace are not done by static top-​down power
dominance of participants, but are dynamically spurred on by notions of efficiency,
productivity, and corporate interests (Nekvapil & Sherman 2009).

4.2 D eveloping open communication
Previous research has shown that when working in the Japanese workplace using
mostly Japanese, Japanese sociocultural norms prevent NJBP from stating theirown opinions to senior JBP freely. In Japanese native situations, communication
strategies for maintaining good relationships suggest the speaker’s avoidanceof confrontation of the conversational opponent in line with Japanese sociocultural norms (Noda 2004). And NJBP who were working in monolingual Japanese
workplaces needed to follow the communication strategies to maintain good
relationships. My interview data, however, revealed various communication strategies adjusted by NJBP who were working not only in multilingual foreign based
companies or CECL, but also in monolingual Japanese companies to build close
relationships with JBP without being tied to Japanese sociocultural norms.
A year after joining a monolingual Japanese company, CF4 implemented alanguage adjustment to solve a communication problem in her workplace. She
noted her lack of friendly open communication with her Japanese colleagues
even after one year with the company as a deviation, and evaluated her relations
with Japanese colleagues negatively. She then planned to design adjustment tointeract with her Japanese colleagues outside business hours. She has implemented
the adjustment to communicate with them in informal settings repeatedly andNon-Japanese business people’s use of Japanese language343

evaluated her adjustment positively. After implementing the adjustment, sheclaimed to have gained confidence in herself to express her professional opinions
even against her Japanese superiors, as well as gained her pragmatic competence
to make better sales results than before.
Example 5
最初は、自分、多分考え方も、あの、全然、あのまだ中国的な考え方とか、
全然日本の考え方じゃなくて。なんで、あの、昼も、仕事と一緒に、なきゃいけないのか。あとは、行ったら何を喋るんですかって、抵抗感あって、行かなかったです。それで1年間がずっと続いて、やばいと認識してまして。やっぱ、会話がないと、どうしても距離は縮めないです。[…]行き始めると、毎回行ってます、ほぼほぼ。日本の会社に入って初めて分かったのが、お昼と夜の飲み会は、ちょっと言い過ぎなかもしれないんですけれど、仕事と同じ重要ということが分かりました。そこで、あの、相手と自分の関係を見ているとかの、多いと思います。それから、多分、自信がつけて、はっきり言えるようになっているところもあると思います。 (CF4)[At first, I, maybe I still had that, a Chinese way of thinking, not at all a Japanese wayof thinking. I thought, why should I spend even lunchtime with work colleagues?
Even if I went out for lunch with them, I wondered what we would even talk about
and so I was reluctant and didn’t go. The situation continued like that for a year andfinally I realized that it can’t go on like that. Because, after all, without conversation,
you can’t really get closer. […] Since I started eating out with them, I’ve been goingout with them every time, almost. It’s only occurred to me after I started working fora Japanese company, but socializing at lunchtime and having drinks after work, well,it may sound like an overstatement a bit, but I understood that they are as important as work. Through these, well, I think I’m often watching my relationships withother people. Since then, maybe, I think I gained confidence and learnt to express [myopinions] clearly.]

During the interview, CF4 described an interaction with her superior about a sales
discount rate to her Chinese clients. CF4 had opposed the decisions made by her
superior and convinced him. As the first salesperson who is in charge of growing
Chinese market, she openly disclosed her counter-​opinions to her Japanese superior with confidence. She thought she understood the demand of Chinese clients
better than he did. When she spoke Japanese, she did not avoid confrontation
with her conversational partner along with the Japanese sociocultural norm, butfollowed her Chinese norm that dictates using explicit speech style. In responseto the questions in the follow-​up survey conducted in 2019, CF4 explained that
her assertive speaking style of communication, in which she wasn’t afraid of friction with her boss, helped with her career development in the company. As of thespring of 2019, she was an overseas assistant sales manager in charge of a broad
area of overseas markets with both Japanese and non-​Japanese subordinates. In
the monolingual Japanese workplace, CF4 was interested in developing her professional career and had built an open relationship with her Japanese colleagues

344

Chikako Ketchamthrough her assertive speaking style, which was different from her Japanesecounterparts. On the other hand, she was using her native language, Mandarin, todeal with Chinese clients and had achieved better sales results than the Japanesesales employees of her company. Within the company, she was using Japanese
language as part of her language repertoire to build open relationships and had
proved her competence. As a multilingual speaker who can utilize her language
repertoire, CF4 has influenced power relations between JBP and NJBP.
The second example using Japanese language to develop open communication was seen in a multilingual environment at an American capital multinational
IT consulting company. TM5 used Japanese language as a communication tool
without being tied to Japanese sociocultural norms. The corporate culture of his
company was quite casual without making strict language rules. All the meetingrooms were equipped with colorfully designed furniture to enhance the free speechof employees in a relaxed atmosphere. TM5 used Japanese language when he spokewith Japanese clients as well as his Japanese superior whose English proficiency
was not sufficient to communicate in English. TM5 was an account executive toprovide IT solutions to major Japanese companies. His main responsibilities were
to work as an intermediary between his client companies and his in-​house IT specialist such as asking clients’ demands, delivering the demands to an IT specialist
to create the solutions, and providing the solution to the clients. TM5 described anegotiation in an in-​house meeting with a Lebanese IT engineer and his Japanesesuperior being held on the same day as the interview. TM5 organized the meeting
to discuss a solution to be provided to a client he was in charge of. He asked his
Japanese superior who had sales career in a Japanese market to join the meeting tosupport him whenever he could not answer questions from the IT engineer.
Example 6
えっと二人とも年上でした。フラットじゃなかったんですけれども、ま、会
社、基本が、けっこうフラットな感じなので。私の上司があまり英語、喋れないので、3人、日本語で。まあ、私は敬語を使ってたんですけど。上司は、ほとんど喋らなかったんですけども[…]もうひとりは、レバノン人です。ま、
日本語、ペラペラですけど。外国人の方なので、もうちょっと、プログレッ
シブな感じの会話でした。「これが、もうちょっと情報も分からないと、こっち側、戦略できないので。理想的には、事前にもうちょっとインフォメー
ション欲しい。」とか強く言って。で、私が「ちょっと、そちらは分からな
いので、次回のミーティングで一緒に行けばと思います。そのミーティング
で、あの、詳細を一緒に聞きましょう。」って話になって。[…]そうですね、
ま、リラックスではないですけれども、けっこうプログレッシブな感じのコ
ミュニケーションでした。 (TM5)[Well, they were both older than me. It wasn’t flat, but the company was basicallypretty flat. My boss can’t speak English very well, so the three of us spoke Japanese.
I was using the honorific form of Japanese. My boss didn’t speak much, though.
[…] And the other one was Lebanese. Well, his Japanese is fluent. Because he was aNon-Japanese business people’s use of Japanese language

345

foreigner, the conversation felt a bit more progressive. He requested strongly “If we
don’t have a bit more information, we won’t be able to make a strategy. Ideally, I need
like a little more information beforehand.” Then, I said something like, “I don’t knowmuch more, so how about we go to the next meeting [with the clients] together? We’ll
ask for the details together.” […] Well, it wasn’t relaxing, but it was a pretty progressive communication.]

This interaction interview took place the day before TM5 left for a week-​long vacation. TM5 was tasked with listening to the client’s requests in detail and passing
them on to an engineer in the company, but due to the fact that he could not work
the following week, he noted the request from the engineer to bring information
prior to the meeting with the client as a deviation, and designed the adjustment
to react assertively in Japanese language. TM5 used Japanese language as a means
to hold a meeting including his Japanese superior. But in fact, during the meeting,TM5 spoke mainly with the Lebanese engineer, adjusting his speaking style in an
aggressive manner to negotiate with him. Thus, in his multilingual company, TM5
used various speaking styles of Japanese language to develop professional open
communication not bound to Japanese sociocultural or sociolinguistic norms.
Moreover, TM5 shed light on the use of honorific forms of the Japanese language.
In interactions in Japanese language that take place in workplaces, the choice ofJapanese honorific and plain (non-​honorific) forms is governed by sociolinguistic
variables and sociocultural norms where hierarchical differentials and power relations are clearly manifested. TM5 implemented his adjustment to use honorificforms to speak with his Japanese superior in his less hierarchical workplace.
Another comment by TM5 concerning a Japanese honorific form suggests
his linguistic norm for speaking with JBP. He described a dialogue between two
Japanese colleagues which he had observed in a casual in-​house meeting. TM5
noted that a Japanese colleague of his used a speech style lacking in honorificforms toward the elder colleague as a deviation from his Japanese linguistic norm,and evaluated the young colleague’s Japanese speech style negatively.
Example 7
私は言ってないですけど、ちょっと失礼かなと思ったんです、正直、残念ながら。27歳のほうが33歳の人に、「これは考えた方がいいんじゃない？」って感じで言ったら、隣のみんなが、「ううっ、大丈夫かな。」って感じになったんですね。[…]外国人が日本に来て、英語とか使ってて、敬語を使わなくても問題ないと思います。日本人ってラベルがつけられたら、まあ、あの、イメージが悪くなったり。 (TM5)[I didn’t say anything, but frankly I thought he was a bit rude, unfortunately. Whenthe 27-​year-​old said to the 33-​year-​old. “Don’t you think you should rethink this?”everyone around felt. “Well, is that okay?” […] I think there is no problem if foreigners
who come to Japan are speaking English or Japanese without using honorifics. But
when labelled a native Japanese speaker, well, that person’s image gets tarnished.]

346

Chikako Ketcham

For TM5, honorific form of Japanese language does not mean a manifestation ofa hierarchical power but a speech style to be used with elder/​superior Japanese.
In Japanese monolingual workplaces, JBP frequently assess the communication
skills of NJBP through the usage of Japanese honorific forms based on the Japanese
linguistic, sociolinguistic, and sociocultural norms. Conversely, in a less hierarchical multinational American capital company, this assessment aspect of usage ofJapanese honorific form was different. A non-​Japanese business person assessed
his Japanese colleague’s Japanese speaking style towards older Japanese colleagues
negatively from Japanese linguistic norms. But this assessment was implemented
only in the case of Japanese native situations, not contact situations.

4.3 F ostering informal in-​group solidarity
This study has shown examples that NJBP are using various Japanese speaking
styles according to their own interests. The interlocutors with whom NJBP use
Japanese language are not limited to JBP, but also include NJBP who are culturally and linguistically diverse. NJBP utilize Japanese as a lingua franca to adjust
the power relations to foster an informal in-​group solidarity. This section shows
examples of two NJBP working in multilingual workplaces.
CF6 speaks English, Chinese, and Japanese at the CECL where she works. In her
business hours, she uses Japanese to deal with domestic Japanese clients. But when
she interacts with her colleagues during lunch breaks, she chooses languages according to her companions. She described her informal interaction with hercolleagues during the lunch break on the same day as the interview. She spoke
Japanese with two Chinese, one American, and one Japanese colleague. When theinterviewer asked CF6 why she spoke Japanese even though her Japanese colleague could speak English fluently, she answered the following.
Example 8
外国籍の同僚と一緒にランチする時、英語で喋ってます。中国人の同僚とだ
け話す時は中国語、日本人がいると日本語。一応、働いている中で、周りもほとんど日本語使っていますので、あの英語圏の方、うまく喋れなくても、
なんとなく分かります。多分、日本人に対しては日本語で話した方がいいか
なと思います。(CF6)[I speak English when I have lunch with foreign colleagues, Chinese when talking
with only Chinese colleagues, and Japanese when there is a Japanese person present.
As people around me use mostly Japanese language at work, even those, who arefrom English-​speaking countries and do not speak Japanese fluently, can more or lessunderstand Japanese. I think that it is better to talk to Japanese people in Japanese.]

In her informal socializing, CF6 uses Japanese language with her Japanesecolleagues regardless of their English proficiency. CF6 is interested in using
Japanese language with her Japanese colleagues as a lingua franca to perfect her
competence in a host country’s language, as well as to protect her non-​JapaneseNon-Japanese business people’s use of Japanese language

347

networks by speaking English with her non-​Japanese friends. Ironically, in CECLs,
NJBP use Japanese language as a lingua franca with JBP, but outside of the surveillance of CECLs, they speak English as a lingua franca excluding JBP.
Meanwhile, Kubota (2016) has suggested that English used as a lingua franca
does not always function well with people from non-​English dominant countries.
The interview with CF6 showed the example that a Chinese employee did not use
English language to communicate with her Korean employee. In informal settings,
CF6 did not use English, but Japanese to communicate with Korean colleagues as
an alternative language to English. When explaining why she used Japanese withher Korean colleagues in informal settings, CF6 said she often felt it difficult tomake friends with Korean nationals in her informal English-​speaking network.
Thus, she spoke Japanese as a lingua franca. Yet, Japanese used as a lingua francaalso does not always function well with people from cultures that use honorifics
and those that do not. When CF6 was using Japanese language with her Koreancolleague, she noted a comment of the Korean colleague as a deviation, and evaluated it negatively. The following excerpt describes her adjustment to exclude
her Korean colleague from her informal in-​group network. When a non-​Japanesebusiness person from another department left the company, CF6 wrote a shortmessage to an older Korean colleague who was working with that person in thesame department.
Example 9
韓国人の先輩がいる部署の外国人が辞めると聞いて、その人に、「あの人は、どこに行くの？」って、メッセで聞いたら、「私が先輩なのに、なんで敬語使わないの？」って返してきて、びっくりして、「え？」って。別にオーストラリア人とか、インドネシア人は、そこまで気にしてないです。[…]返事しませんでした。彼は１コ上ぐらいです。その人と廊下で会いましたけ
ど、無視して。それから話してません。(CF6)[When I heard that a foreigner in the department where I have an older Korean colleague was quitting, I asked him in a short message, “Where is the person going?” andhe replied, “I’m your senior, why don’t you use honorific language?” and I was so surprised, “What?” I thought. I don’t think Australian or Indonesian colleagues are that
bothered. […] I didn’t respond. He was about a year older than me. After that, I saw
him in the hallway but ignored him. Since then, I’ve never spoken to him.]

In her informal Japanese communication, CF6 did not use the Japanese honorific forms from her communicative norms. Having assumed her Korean colleague
shared the informal communicative norm just like other NJBP, CF6 contacted
him in Japanese. Contrary to her expectation, the Korean colleague evaluated her
non-​honorific forms of Japanese negatively, pointing out the lack of politenesstowards her senior. CF6 noted that as a deviation from her communicative norms
in informal networking, and implemented her adjustment not to respond to hiscomment and ignored him. She uses language as a means to form her different in-​groups and foster the informal in-​group solidarity.

348

Chikako Ketcham

It is important to consider the fact that many NJBP have traveled widely in theircareers and have experience with multiple cultures as well as with some generalbusiness culture norms. When these differences have to be negotiated ethicallywithin the in-​group, there is the example that NJBP use Japanese, a language of thehost country, as a lingua franca, to foster their multinational informal in-​group solidarity. VF1 has kept her in-​group community with four multinational colleaguesby having lunch together every week since she joined the company. Inside hercommunity, she uses Japanese with her friends regardless of nationality. During
the interview, she explained about her long-​lasting socializing lunch meeting withher multinational colleagues.
Example 10
すごい気持ちが伝わるから色々相談します。ひとりはタイ人です。その先輩と私は外国人どうしですけど、日本語で喋ってるんですよ、英語じゃな
くて。日本語はスゴイ丁寧じゃないですか。だから、人、落ち着くと言うか。[…]先輩も自分の言いたいこと全部私に言うから、私も全部言ったら、多分喧嘩になるんじゃないですか。他の日本人の先輩だったら、多分、なんか黙ってくれると言うか、言わなくなります。でも、その外国人の先輩とだったら、私が、あまり言わなくなります。(VF1)[I’m very comfortable talking about various topics with them. One friend is Thai. This
older colleague and I are both foreigners, but we use Japanese, not English, whentalking together. I think the Japanese language is so polite. People feel calm when
they speak Japanese. […] My older [Thai] colleague tells me everything she wants,
so if I also told her everything, it would probably lead to a quarrel, right? With myJapanese seniors, if I were to complain about something to them, they would probably hold back their opinions, or just say nothing. But with this Thai colleague, if shecomplains to me about something, I don’t say much.]

VF1 spoke Japanese as a lingua franca to adjust power relations with her multinational friends. She said her Japanese speaking style depended on her interlocutor. When she speaks with Japanese friends, she feels like expressing her opinion
aggressively with maintaining mutual relations with her Japanese friends wholisten to her opinion quietly. Whereas when she speaks with her foreign friends,
she plays a role of listener to make good relations. As Fan pointed out adjustment
behaviors used by native Japanese speakers for collaborative conversations can beseen even in Japanese conversation among non-​native Japanese speakers as well
(Fan 1999). A non-​Japanese business person speaks Japanese as a lingua franca tofoster her in-​group solidarity. VF1 speaks Japanese not only for the Japanese, butalso for herself to live with people from different cultures in a society. As of April
2019, VF1 was married to a Japanese and enjoying her career in the same company
while expanding her networking.

Non-Japanese business people’s use of Japanese language

349

4 C
 onclusion
NJBP use Japanese language to communicate with both JBP and NBP as motivatedby their own interests in their daily interactions, through which new power relations seem to be generated in the workplace. Some of the NJBP’s language management described in interviews seemed to be practiced by the NJBP repeatedly intheir daily life. Looking at NJBP’s strategic use of Japanese language at work, we
see several underlying interests behind their language management.
Firstly, one common interest involves a desire to increase efficiency of communication and accomplish work-​related goals by speaking Japanese with JBP.
Some NJBP are actively using Japanese to compensate for JBP’s lack of English
skills. This tactic of NJBP to impose their Japanese proficiency on JBP is capableof bringing about a shift of power relations taking away the power of JBP as native Japanese speakers. Moreover, a company policy of CECLs which enhancesbusiness efficiency has led NJBP to use Japanese language in daily interaction
against the language policy of CECLs. CECLs tend to assess the achievement of
their own language policy by the fact of the increase of their employees’ TOEIC
scores. However, in order to develop efficient and sustainable language policy inthe future, it may be essential for CECLs to scrutinize how the employees use
languages in their daily interactions in the workplace.
Secondly, NJBP spoke in Japanese, one part of their language repertoires, inthe interest of developing open communication with their business counterparts.
Some NJBP implemented language adjustment to state explicit counter opinions
against their Japanese superiors rather than to conform to the preference foravoiding confrontation based on the sociocultural and sociolinguistic norms of
JBP. NJBP’s interest in developing open communication to establish good relations with their business counterparts makes NJBP use various speaking styles
in Japanese. The follow-​up survey showed the fact that NJBP who continued todevelop their careers in Japanese companies have not necessarily been making
adjustments in accordance with Japanese pragmatic norms dictating that speakers
hide their own discomfort to avoid any confrontation. Furthermore, NJBP’s use ofJapanese honorific forms are not always tied with Japanese sociocultural norms but
used from the pragmatic norms of NJBP. Japanese language textbooks explain theusage of honorific forms in the context of power difference along with suggestions
for using an indirect speech style to protect the face of power holder. However, ause of Japanese honorific forms in accordance with power relations shown in theJapanese language textbooks is not always in line with the pragmatic norms of
NJBP at contact situations in multilingual environments.
Lastly, NJBP use Japanese as a lingua franca in the interest of fostering their in-​group community’s maintenance of good relations in the multinational in-​groups
to which they belong in Japan.
NJBP use Japanese language at work in a wide variety of Japanese language
styles in accordance with their pragmatic norms, which are not always alignedwith those of Japanese sociolinguistic norms or Japanese sociocultural norms.

350

Chikako KetchamAnd, such various styles of Japanese language seem to be empowering NJBP to
influence power relations in Japanese companies.
Japan is one of the first countries in the world to face a rapid decline in population. Japan’s working age population will be rapidly declining in the coming
twenty years, with the largest decline occurring in the age group of between 35 and44 years old. The average number of years of work experience for this age groupis about fifteen, which in most cases corresponds to middle managerial positions(Nakamura 2020). In human resource management, Japanese companies have been
weighing team responsibility focusing on training middle managerial positioned
employees to gain organizational management skills. When a number of multinational employees will be in middle managerial positions in Japanese companies,
how will Japanese companies manage their multinational organizations? Japanese
government and companies need to draw a picture to build strong organizations
as well as to establish Japanese language policies in the workplace aimed at not
only the management of workplace efficiency, but also at developing collaborative
organizations. As this chapter suggests, NJBP are using Japanese language in various speaking styles for their own interests. As we think about the future of Japan,
we can learn a lot from the present interactions of the NJBP, who will be a part ofJapanese society in the future.
This study has focused on NJBP’s interests analyzing NJBP’s adjustments inJapanese language based on LMT. However, to enrich the research on Japanese
language use in the workplace, the other side of the interactions, the experiencesof JBP, also need to be studied to gain a clearer picture of communication in theworkplace in Japan.

References
Aibara, S. (2009) Bijinesu sesshokubamen ni okeru Nihongo bogowasha to
gakushūsha ni shōjiru mondai: Kaigai de Nihongo o shiyō suru Nihongo
bogowasha no shiten o saguru [Problems that arise in business discourse
between native and non-​native speakers of Japanese]. Matani ronshū 3, 49–​77.
Aibara, S. (2012) Bijinesu sesshokubamen ni okeru Nihongo bogowasha no mondai
ishiki [Problem awareness regarding Japanese native speakers in business discourse]. Waseda Nihongo kyōikugaku [Waseda Studies in Japanese Language
Education] 11, 109–​133.
Amelina, M. (2010) Do other languages than English matter? International careerdevelopment of highly-​qualified professionals. In B. Meyer & B. Apfelbaum(eds) Multilingualism at Work: From Policies to Practices in Public, Medical andBusiness Settings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 235–​252.
Bargiela-​Chiappini, F. & Nickerson, C. (2003) Intercultural business communication: A rich field of studies. Journal of Intercultural Studies 24 (1), 3–​15.
Cabinet Office (2019) Kigyō no gaikokujin koyō ni kansuru bunseki: Torikumi
to kadai ni tsuite [Analysis of foreign employment in companies: Initiatives

Non-Japanese business people’s use of Japanese language351

and issues]. Seisakukadai bunseki shirīzu [Policy Issue Analysis Series] 18.
On WWW at https://​www5.cao.go.jp/​keiz​ai3/​2019/​09sei​saku​kada​i18-​6.pdf.
Accessed September 26, 2021.
Canagarajah, S. (2017) Translingual Practices and Neoliberal Policies: Attitudes andStrategies of African Skilled Migrants in Anglophone Workplaces. Berlin: Springer.
doi: 10.1007/​978-​3-​319-​41243-​6_​1.
Fairbrother, L. (2015a) The management of language and power in interculturalcontact situations in Japan. International Journal of the Sociology of Language
232, 59–​78.
Fairbrother, L. (2015b) Language management in the Japanese workplace. In W. V.
Davies & E. Ziegler (eds) Language Planning and Microlinguistics: From Policy toInteraction and vice versa. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 186–​203. On WWW at
https://​doi.org/​10.1057/​978113​7361​240. Accessed March 8, 2021.
Fairbrother, L. (2015c) The ‘multiform’ linguistic, sociolinguistic and sociocultural
practices of plurilingual employees in European multinationals in Japan. The
Japanese Journal of Language in Society 18 (1), 162–​175.
Fairbrother, L. (2018) The management of everyday English interactions in theJapanese branches of European multinationals. In T. Sherman & J. Nekvapil(eds) English in Business and Commerce: Interactions and Policies. Berlin: De
Gruyter Mouton, 149–​171.
Fairclough, N. (1989) Language and Power. New York: Longman.
Fan, S. K. (1999) Hibogowasha dōshi no Nihongo kaiwa ni okeru gengo mondai[Language problems in Japanese conversations between non-​native speakers].
The Japanese Journal of Language in Society 2 (1), 37–​48.
Jernudd, B. H. & Neustupný, J. V. (1987) Language planning: For whom? In
L. Laforge (ed) Actes du Colloque international sur l’aménagement linguistique /​Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Language Planning. Québec: Les
Presses de l’Université Laval, 69–​84.
Kimura, G. C. (2014) Language management as a cyclical process: A case study
on prohibiting Sorbian in the workplace. Slovo a slovesnost 75 (4), 255–​270.
Kondo, A. (2007) Nihonjin to gaikokujin no bijinesu komyunikēshon ni kansuru jisshōkenkyū [Empirical Study on Business and Communication between Japaneseand Foreigners]. Tokyo: Hitsuji shobō.
Kubota, R. (2013) ‘Language is only a tool’: Japanese expatriates working in China
and implications for language teaching. Multilingual Education 3 (4). doi:10.1186/​2191-​5059-​3-​4. On WWW at http://​www.multi​ling​ual-​educat​ion.com/​cont​ent/​
3/​1/​4. Accessed March 8, 2021.
Kubota, R. (2016) Neoliberal paradoxes of language learning: Xenophobia andinternational communication. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 37 (5), 467–​480. doi: 10.1080/​01434632.2015.1071825.

352

Chikako Ketcham

Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (2016) Heisei 27 nendo Ajia sangyōkiban
kyōka tō jigyō hōkokusho: ‘Uchinaru kokusaika’ o susumeru tame no chōsa
kenkyū [Report on Project for Strengthening the Industrial Base of Asia in
FY2015: Study on Enhancing ‘Internal Globalization’]. On WWW at https://​warp.da.ndl.go.jp/​info:ndljp/​pid/​10317​643/​www.meti.go.jp/​meti_​lib/​rep​ort/​201​
6fy/​001​029.pdf. Accessed September 26, 2021.
Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (2015) Gaikokujin rōdōsha no ukeire ni
kansuru jittai chōsa [Survey on the Actual Conditions of Acceptance of Foreign
Workers]. Kōsei rōdōshō shokugyō anteikyoku [Employment security bureau].
Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (2019) ‘Gaikokujin koyō jōkyō’ no todokede
jōkyō matome (October 2019) [Status of Reporting on the Employment of Foreign Workers by Employers]. On WWW at https://​www.mhlw.go.jp/​stf/​newpag​
e_​09​109.html. Accessed March 8, 2021.
Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare (2021) ‘Gaikokujin koyō jōkyō’ no todokede
jōkyō matome (October 2021) [Status of Reporting on the Employment of Foreign Workers by Employers]. On WWW at https://​www.mhlw.go.jp/​stf/​newpag​
e_​16​279.html. Accessed December 17, 2021.
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication (2019) Population Census 2019.
Statistics Bureau of Japan. On WWW at https://​www.stat.go.jp/​data/​jin​sui/​201​
9np/​pdf/​gai​you.pdf. Accessed September 26, 2021.
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communication (2021) Tōkei heddo rain 12 gatsugō[Statistic Headline. December issue]. Statistics Bureau of Japan. On WWW
at https://​www.stat.go.jp/​info/​headl​ine/​pdf/​202​112.pdf#page=​3. Accessed
December 17, 2021.
Morita, L. (2018) Does doing things the Japanese way attract highly-​skilledmigrants? Cogent Social Sciences 4, Article 1430725. On WWW at doi.org/​
10.1080/​23311886.2018.1430725. Accessed March 8, 2021.
Muraoka, H. (2002) Shitsumonchōsa: Intabyū to ankēto [Question surveys: Interviews
and questionnaires]. In J. V. Neustupný & S. Miyazaki (eds) Gengo Kenkyū no
Hōhō [Methods in Language Research]. Tokyo: Kuroshio shuppan, 125–​142.
Nakamura, J. (2020) Gaikokujin rōdō (Tokushū Heisei no rōdōshijō) [Foreign labor(Special issue on labor market in the Heisei era)]. The Japan Institute of Labour62 (4), 30–​33.
Nekvapil, J. (2009) The integrative potential of language management theory.
In J. Nekvapil & T. Sherman (eds) Language Management in Contact Situations: Perspectives from Three Continents. Frankfurt on the Main: Peter Lang,
1–​11.
Nekvapil, J. & Sherman, T. (2009) Pre-​interaction management in multinational
companies in Central Europe. Current Issues in Language Planning 10 (2), 181–​198.

Non-Japanese business people’s use of Japanese language

353

Neustupný, J. V. (1995) Atarashii Nihongo kyōiku no tameni [Towards a New
Japanese Language Education]. Tokyo: Taishūkan Shoten.
Neustupný, J. V. (2002) Language and power into the 21st century. A paper for theInternational Conference on Language and Empowerment, Malaysian Associationof Modern Languages, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, April 11–​13, 2002. On WWW at
http://​lan​guag​eman​agem​ent.ff.cuni.cz/​bibli​ogra​phy. Accessed October 2, 2021.
Neustupný, J. V. (2003) Japanese students in Prague: Problems of communicationand interaction. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 162, 125–​143.
Nishinippon Shimbun (2018) Shin’imin jidai [New-​immigrant era]. On WWW
at http://​nish​inip​p on.co.jp/​feat​ure/​new_​immi​grat​ion_​age/​arti​cle/​418​041/​.
Accessed March 8, 2021.
Noda, M. (2004) Hidden disagreement: Relation maintenance in the Japanese
discourse of disagreement. In P. Szatrowski (ed) Hidden and Open Conflict inJapanese Conversational Interaction. Tokyo: Kuroshio shuppan, 95–​123.
Norisada, T. (2012) Eigo no shanaikyōgo o kangaeru [Thoughts on English as an
adopted official language]. Kansaigakuin daigaku shōgakuronkyū [Journal ofBusiness Administration of Kwansei Gakuin University] 59 (4), 1–​32.
Sei, R. (1998) Gaikokujin shain to Nihonjin shain: Nihongo ni yoru komyunikēshon
o habamu mono [Foreign staff and Japanese staff: Barriers in business communication in Japanese]. Ibunka Communication [Intercultural Communication]
10, 57–​73.
Tachikawa, M. (2013) Bijinesu komyunikēshon ni okeru ibunkakan konfurikuto e
no taiō: Chūgokujin bijinesupāson no tairitsu kanri hōshiki kara [Intercultural
conflict resolution in business communication: A study of conflict management
styles in Chinese business people]. Journal of Japanese Language Teaching 155,
189–​197.

EpilogueBjörn Jernudd

Some remarks on power in simple andorganized language management
Abstract In this chapter, I will present a series of individual remarks regarding the relationship between power and language management. The first set of remarks will concern
simple management, i.e., the management that occurs in individuals’ discourse, face toface, and the second set relates to organized management. Throughout these remarks,
I use ‘power’ to refer to the obligation created by a speaker to adjust a language expression in discourse, or the prescription regarding an individual’s discourse implemented
by an agency or another institution.
Keywords power, discourse, simple language management, organized language management

1 I ntroduction
This chapter consists of a set of remarks on power and language management, firstin relation to simple management, i.e., the management that occurs in individuals’
discourse, face to face, and then in relation to organized management (for a more
extensive discussion of simple vs. organized management, see Nekvapil 2006: 96).
In line with one of the themes of this volume, the main question I pose is that how
power is exercised on discourse. In doing this, I will make reference to and consider
the relationships between various sociolinguistic and communication theories andthe language management process.

2 S imple language management and power
2.1 P ower and communication accommodation theory
Noting differences in discourse interaction between oneself and others, evaluating and considering whether to adjust our utterances, possibly adjusting to ourcommunication partners, possibly mutually, are accommodation behaviors (onaccommodation theory, as presented by Howard Giles and others (Giles & St. Clair
1979) in the 1970s, cf. Yan & Imamura 2017). It could be argued that any accommodation, either mutual or not, is at least in part motivated by the interactants’
perception of the power differential between them. In mundane interactions, talkcommences, participants note features of each other’s speech, evaluations occur,
and accommodations (i.e., adjustments) follow. Status, stance and identity arethus negotiated and ‘happy communication’ is accomplished. Communicationaccommodation theory (CAT) , however, points to a much more specific set of

358

Björn Jernudd

accommodation behaviors in light of power as a contextual factor in discourse
management. The power potential between interlocutors is mutually signaled
when, for example, “people in subordinate positions would converge to those insuperordinate positions” (Giles & Ogay 2007: 297); and “divergence will occur the
more group members feel their status in the intergroup hierarchy [in any society]is illegitimate and unfair” (Giles & Ogay 2007: 299). Power differentials are reflected
in mutual adjustments by speakers to their interlocutors within the ongoing interaction, yet there is no explicit exercise of power. A vector of power may, however,be identified in speech when people, in CAT terms, over-​, under-​or contra-​accommodate. To take but one example of over-​accommodation, younger people (e.g.,
caretakers) may over-​accommodate in communication with the elderly, evenmaking adjustments of otherwise normal adult speech in the direction of baby talk.
Such speech behavior on the part of caretakers is not merely patronizing, but evensuggestive of inappropriately directive speech and controlling of the relationship(Coupland, Coupland, Giles & Henwood 1988: 9–​10, 32).

2.2 Two cases of power as hegemony
2.2.1 H egemonic battle: Which language to use?
A very curious case of obvious interest in maintaining communication, yet upsetting that goal in doing so, is reported by Tamah Sherman (2009: 92, 93). Participantsin an encounter battle over which language to use in a given interaction: who will
be victorious and force his or her interlocutor to his or her own variety selection.
The very uselessness of this kind of battle (rather than facilitating ongoing communication) suggests that power is exercised, putting one’s interlocutor in a situation where he or she must break off communication, create a standoff by using
his or own selected variety, or submit to using the other selected variety. Sherman(2009: 78) attributes such behavior to ‘a different set of norms for hosting, a hegemonic set’; and, yes, hegemony is realized as an exercise of power.

2.2.2 H egemony by contempt
Evaluating a particular variety as ‘dialect’ or ‘jargon’ or ‘worthless gibberish,’
uncivilized, or irrelevant to current civil society, is an example of hegemony bycontempt. The precise circumstances for such negative evaluation of a variety
vary, as does the severity of proscription in discourse. The variety becomes invisible in the public context. Pervasive projection of contempt seriously damages its
speakers’ own interest in managing and even using their languages. Examples
abound in the sociolinguistic, anthropological and language rights literature offirst peoples’ wholesale oppression by colonizers, often with this outcome (see forexample de Varennes 2016).

Some remarks on power359

2.2.3 D ominance in speaking
The discourse relationship between females and males, in the US and some European societies, is a much-​discussed issue in the literature on power and language.
Zimmerman & West (1975: 125) in their classic text, state that: “just as male dominance is exhibited through male control of macro-​institutions in society, it isalso exhibited through male control of at least a part of micro-​institutions.” In areview article, Kunsmann elaborates (2013: section 5.1): “As we have seen, oneof the controlling mechanisms in micro-​institutions is related to the strategy ofinterrupting. As men are interrupting more often than women, male dominancecan be established in conversations. Thus, turns are claimed, topics are initiatedand maintained by men or abandoned by women.”
Devices by which men exercise power successfully in dyadic or group situations
in which women participate are by controlling the right to speak, notably by interruption. Dominance in discourse through such speech behavior is not, of course,
a feature limited to gendered male-​female interaction, nor is this the only featureused to establish dominance. Kunsmann continues (also 5.1): “questions may also
be used as controlling mechanisms… questions require answers in many conversational situations. When questions in form of facilitative rather than polite or modal
tag-​questions, therefore, are combined with a specific statement they can be used
to maintain or to control the direction of the conversation.”
Happily, women’s fight for gender equality is winning the day, both in speech
and in endeavors. Kunsmann recognizes how the “controlling mechanisms” listed
in the quote above applies generally in anyone’s speech: “As women use this typeof question more often than men, female dominance can be established.”

2.2.4 A knowledge differential between communication partners
2.2.4.1 D oes better knowledge confer power in discourse?

Power by virtue of differential knowledge in a role-​relationship has been a topic
of interest in discourse linguistics for some time. For example, Tannen discusses
the question of power in discourse (1987: 4) in this way: “Thus doctors, lawyers,
and teachers, in examining rooms, courts, and classrooms (respectively, of course)
are doing business-​as-​usual on their home turf, while their clients pass throughthe system, often confused and always ignorant of the intricacies of the system.
This suggests a problem inherent in understanding power in discourse.” Tannen
addresses the problem in the continuation of the above quote and with reference
to another author: “As McDermott says it, ‘meaning is really in the situation,’and most of what people understand in interaction can’t be located in the words
spoken.”“If knowledge is to be taken as a form of power,” writes Fairbrother (2009: 135),
then using language that expresses that knowledge is an exercise of power. It may
seem reasonable to suggest that a speaker with knowledge ‘has’ power in relation to an interlocutor. This power would emanate from performing one’s role as360

Björn Jernudd

knowledgeable, as an expert in relation to an interlocutor, about the topic at hand,by using role-​specific professional language, whether innocently or unwittingly
performing that role appropriately. However, one may think of knowledge as asource of power in a different manner. A speaker’s use of role-​specific expressions
may solicit the interlocutor’s next turn request for an adjustment in the very weaksense of seeking clarification of what an expression means. In such an exchangeof turns, the first speaker does not oblige the adjustment of the second speaker’s
speech. It would be a contradiction of the role relationship and of the very purposeof the interaction to interpret such a request by the second speaker as submitting
to power. Or the second speaker may remain passive, possibly evaluating the professional speech as inadequate for the resolution of the issue at hand. Worse, thefirst speaker may deflect or not meet the request for adjustment by the second
speaker. This is unfortunate, but I do not see how the perception of power in therole-​relationship in question has changed; I do see how the second speaker ends
up less informed, perhaps confused, and possibly ready to consult with anotherexpert. Most of us leave things as they are when we talk, as we just want to get on
with the transaction.
Much is being made of the ‘power’ role held in particular by a physician vis-​à-​vis the patient. Wherein lies the power here? I recognize my physician’s greater
knowledge and therefore authority and greater power over conditions relating to
my illness, not over me, and with intent to cure me. I would not be there otherwise.
Several of us are complicit in creating this interaction. The physician may be her
sweetest and most apologetic self in our interaction and I will still submit to her
authority. As a patient I respect the physician’s sought-​after knowledge and diagnosis and treatment, including, even, being ordered about.
The interaction attributes power by virtue of knowledge, of the role into which
the physician is cast and supported by an institutional environment of the ‘clinic’or the ‘hospital.’ The physician in the clinical environment has a very well-​definedkind of power and it exists externally to discourse.

2.2.4.2 Is pre-​adjustment by knowledgeable interlocutors an exponent of
power in discourse?

The knowledge differential which is inherent in the expert-​to-​lay role-​relationshiphas consequences for formulating discourse when one speaker makes the assumption that the other speaker is not his or her equal in disentangling the finer pointsof his or her expert discourse (cf. Fairbrother 2009; Sherman 2009). The first speaker
may note and preemptively avoid such expressions as s/​he evaluates to possibly
be beyond his or her interlocutor’s immediate comprehension. The first speakeraccommodates to the second speaker by substituting any range of expressions, asadjustments, that keep the second speaker in the know, and that engage him or
her as an active participant in moving the issue forward to a successful, actionablefinish: whether taking the right prescription at the right time or installing the rightkind of glass in the door to the veranda.

Some remarks on power

361

There is also the reciprocal of a knowledgeable speaker’s adjustment toanother’s lack of specialist language. Nemoto (2009: 239) reports on participants’“I don’t know what to say properly” and “my clumsy speech.” This is self-​exclusion,of avoiding speaking and participating altogether, because of feeling “clumsy” and“overwhelmed;” and evaluating one’s own potential of speaking as in-​advance-​
inadequate. If we name the listener who evaluates him or herself as a self-​determined inadequate participant, then his or her interlocutor does not exercise powerin this interaction—​the first speaker pre-​adjusts on the basis of his or her own
perceived future inadequacy.

2.2.4.3 Qu estions as power in discourse?

As broad a behavior as some question-​answer sequences has been linked to exercise
of power. I have already referred to the use of facilitative questions above in male-​female interaction (in some societies). Sociocultural and legal power may inhere in
how a first turn speaker evaluates a second turn speaker’s response in question-​answer adjacency pairs in particular settings. Yoshimitsu (2009: 221) and Marriott(2009: 171) bring up interviewing, a question-​answer exchange, as one such setting. However, is an interviewee’s accommodation towards an interviewer’s line ofenquiry evidence of power imposition by the interviewer? Yes, one leads, the other
responds, but the latter’s agreed role is not to question. The situation is characterized by the interviewing situation’s constraints, but it is not one of the exercise of
power. In fact, it would be most disconcerting for an interviewer to learn that s/​
he has led the interviewee in a particular direction, or forced answers, precisely
something that must not happen in interview situations.

3 O rganized language management and power
3.1 S tates and language determination
The clear intent of exercise of power over speech communities occurs in a state
as states implement national (official, labels are not important) language policies
by regulation of situations of appropriate use of designated variety (or varieties).
Power resides in a political authority. European history offers examples. (Re-​)organizing states in Europe into nation-​states, accompanied by an ideology ofnationalism, broke up, subordinated or oppressed a multitude of small and unto-​
themselves-​operating and -​identifying communities, touting the preferred value ofa national language, the one unifying, standard language. Industrialization hand inhand with radically transformed land use and a centralizing bureaucracy reinforcedsocial and communicational change. A multitude of policies were implemented tonurture participation in this complex transformational socio-​economic process,under a political umbrella of the ideology of nationalism.
As new states emerged during the middle of the previous century, equivalent processes unfolded when the state determined and funded development of

362

Björn Jernudd

a designated language. An example is Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka (the Malaysian
Language and Literacy Agency) to develop Bahasa Malaysia (on this agency, seealso below.) I quote a mission statement for the Dewan formulated by its director(1957–​1969) Tun Syed Nasir bin Ismail and as rendered in English translation by
the Dewan:
It is clear that language is not just an important factor in the national cultural constitution of a nation but it is also important in the nurturing of religious precepts. And it
is equally clear to us who live in this independent nation that differences arising fromthe diversity of religions and cultures can be resolved with language as a tool towards
national unity. (CITRA 2003, 2004: xiii)

The process through which members of society rallied around the national-​
language-​in-​creation, Bahasa Malaysia, remains unclear. The International
Research Project on Language Planning Processes yielded some insights (Rubin,
Jernudd, DasGupta, Fishman & Ferguson 1977). Prescribed usages must have been
mandated in producing texts in government offices and companies, and of coursein education. The Dewan took on projects to formulate norms for specialized areasof work, published broadly, and ran courses. It stands to reason that trainees andspecialists would fall in line: through notings and subsequent adjustment to prescribed norms by reference to guidelines and prior texts, followed by routinization.
Agencies (of organized language management) are under orders to produce
new language and make the population use it, but how individuals eventually appear to have adjusted accordingly remains subject to investigation. New usages
consolidate when individuals make up a captive audience, such as bank tellers
or civil servants or teachers, who are expected to follow normative guidelines; orwhen new entrants to writing follow norms of written language through which
they learn and that surround them. Power is exercised by obliging adjustments
according to prescribed norms.
Silencing someone by proscribing the use of one language and prescribing theuse of another is the limiting case of exercising power by an organized language
management authority. Lest we forget, there is no ambiguity about the direct
exercise of power when schools were used to erase Otherness in many states, e.g.,
in Sweden (for nation-​state policy directed at the Saamí in Sweden, see Elenius
2016), and in the US. In the US, young members of the first nations were removed
from their native communities and placed in schools to undergo, by today’s evaluation, forced assimilation. A certain Richard Henry Pratt had convinced the
Bureau of Indian Affairs to open the Carlisle Indian School in Carlisle, Pennsylvania: “Transfer the savage-​born infant to the surroundings of civilization andhe will grow to possess a civilized language and habit,” he wrote; more succinctly
put, “Kill the Indian, Save the Man” (Yu 2009). These are violently discriminatory
actions because they sought to erase Otherness (Swenson 2017).

Some remarks on power

363

3.2 S
 tates and language development
Besides managing variety selection, organized language management also controls
a wide variety of kinds of language expression, such as terminologies, naming,
spelling, unto which power is realized, e.g., by sanctions directed at inadequate
usage or by mandated implementation. The agency charged with developing
Malaysia’s national language, Bahasa Malaysia, offers a paradigmatic exampleof the mission of such agencies at present. Its specific objectives have probably
changed somewhat over the decades, but I reproduce here one version from 2003:
1.	 To develop and enrich the national language in all fields including science andtechnology.
2.	 To promote literary talent especially in the national language.
3.	 To print or publish or assist in the printing or publication of books, magazines,
pamphlets and other forms of literature in the national language as well as in otherlanguages.
4.	 To standardize the spelling and pronunciation of and to coin appropriate terminologies in the national language.
5.	 To encourage the correct use of the national language.
6.	 To encourage the extensive use of the national language for all purposes in accordance with the existing laws. (CITRA 2003, 2004: 9)

3.3 I mplementation of public discourse thru schools
The state implements organized language management thru schools, to prepareindividuals for specialized roles in society. Communication in bureaucracies,
enterprises, in a most all-​encompassing range of speaking and writing situations
outside of narrowly private encounters, require language performance according
to norms. I will refer to this set of norms as public discourse. Teleman, a Swedish
historian of language cultivation, does not mince words: “Skolan är alltså en av deinstitutioner som staten betjänar sig av för att säkra samhällets fortbestånd” [Theschool is thus one of those institutions that the state puts to use to secure continuity of society] (Teleman 1979: 106).
Parents and peers control much of a maturing child’s language environment.
The growing individual will also soon be expected to adjust his or her own language
to the language management demands by child care institutions and schools. The
child will take for granted care-​givers’ and then teachers’ invitations to adjustment
in discourse and in education, being essentially socially powerless, while being
controlled. Public discourse constitutes and maintains the societal order, and the
young are socialized into its language[s]‌(and society) foremost by schooling (seeHirsch, Jr. 2016), by being taught content while at the same time acquiring constitutive vocabulary and phraseology, including the ability to organize one’s discourse, i.e., of disposition and formulation. In his book Språkrätt, Teleman (1979)

364

Björn Jernudd

unveils how schooling manages language use by the young. Språk is language, andas for rätt, I give it two interpretations, as–​	 on the one hand, ‘has a right’–​	 on the other ‘is correct.’
There is a relationship between the two interpretations, because individuals incontemporary societies:–​	 have a right to education (thus, to language education)–​	 in order to acquire norms of language use, and–​	 to perform adequately according to those norms.
Different types of language management issues arise in this educational process.
Teleman classifies these as follows:(1) Normkonflikt [norm conflict](2) Normlucka [norm gap]
(3) Maskineriet strejkar [the machinery doesn’t work]

3.3.1 N orm conflict
Paraphrasing Teleman, norm conflict (1979: 120) typically occurs—​and the context
here is school—​when the pupil follows private norms but teachers demand thatthe pupil generates discourse according to public norms. Obvious examples are
spelling deviations from codified orthographic norms due to the pupil’s divergent
phonology. Syntactic and especially stylistic differentials between pupils’ written
efforts and public norms pose considerable challenges to pedagogy while spellingdeviations due to a mismatch between spelling and the pupil’s pronunciation canbe readily explained. One can only hope that teachers do not misuse their corrective power but instead offer insight into why adjustments would be advisable,
however arbitrary they may seem to the person still in school. Otherwise, thepupil may feel that s/​he cannot generate adequate, i.e., approved, discourse, thus
avoids expressing her/​himself. The pupil ends up writing about something else, notwriting at all, or tries anyway (for copious examples in Danish and Swedish, see
Teleman 1979: 121–​128).

3.3.2 N orm gaps
Norm gaps (Teleman 1979: 129) to a lesser extent concern vocabulary, other thanof course not having acquired some words, but also phraseology, idioms, idiomatic phrases, text structure, and much else. As to gaps in vocabulary, the pupil
cannot express content adequately, and therefore generates a meagre or just plain
inadequate expression (for examples in Danish and Swedish, see Teleman 1979:
129–​136).

Some remarks on power

365

3.3.3 M achinery doesn’t work
The machinery doesn’t work (Teleman 1979: 136) happens when the pupil cannot
apply norms which he or she is aware should be applied. The pupil tries but loses
control one way or the other of formulating him or herself, whether in speaking
or writing. This example may serve: “ville se efter vem som hämtade det var;” mytranslation ‘wanted to find out who collected it was.’ Two possible formulations
got mixed up (Teleman 1979: 136).

3.4 I mplementation of norms beyond school
From babyhood, an individual is exposed to more or less rigorous norms forlanguage use. Parenthetically, most people are not aware of the organized language
management agencies that produce public language norms. Norm-​giving and-​authorizing agencies abound, language advisory services may not abound, but
surely surround us in daily life.
Individuals turn to these agencies to request evaluations and adjustments, overwhelmingly to find consolation in what they accept as ‘correct,’ thus there is noquestion of sanction having to be exerted. Yet sanctions are subtle little devils
when it comes to using ‘correct’ language. These agencies’ output carries theauthority of the norm, made visible by deviations, and the benefits of managing
these deviations accrue differentially across the speaking and writing population(Beneš, Prošek, Smejkalová & Štěpánová 2018; Jernudd 2018). As an individualcommits to an adjustment, the norm authority’s power is consummated. And soit goes. We witness a process of circular cumulative causation (Myrdal 1968, III).
The Prague School pioneered an understanding of standard language. I need
not go into its motivations and character, other than to also refer to three stylistic
characteristics that Teleman attributes to public language: its impersonality, its
standardization, and its complexity; all three closely motivated by the functioningof the kind of society that public language serves (Teleman 1979: 66 ff.). That kind ofsociety is one in which: “The writing classes manage and develop public language.
This means that those classes exercise power over the use of [public] language”(Teleman 1979: 69, translation mine). Once an adult, the individual unremarkably
submits to language management demands. Few contest the adult’s submission to
the power of social institutions, to norms upheld by the same. Thus society is constantly (re)constituted. A necessary good, if not good it is the harsh reality, despite
implications of inequality and exclusion (cf. Karlberg 2005).

3.5 P
 ower by constraints on discourse
There is also imposition. The Trump administration in the US issued directives(Eilperin & Sun 2017) that list and negatively evaluate expressions to be avoided inuse in several government documents. For example, “employees at the Department
of Health and Human Services were told to avoid certain words—​including “vulnerable,” “entitlement” and “diversity”—​when preparing requests for next year’s366

Björn Jernudd

budget.” Such editing brings to mind the Newspeak scenario (Orwell 1949). Poweris exercised by obliging noting a language expression listed by authority and—​aware of its negative evaluation by a government agency as recipient of any text
being formulated with it—​adjusting to its recommended replacement, or reformulating. I am reminded of the early years of replacing male-​referencing vocabulary,say, fireman to firefighter, in the interest of advocating gender equality (DeFrancis
1994). This much gentler process of noting mobilizes gender awareness and an
expectation that (in this case: the Honolulu local government) documents are edited to conform. The requirement of using particular vocabulary items in particular
documents within local government may demand compliance—​although the sanction in such a case would probably be limited to a rewrite.
Quite severe, however, is the recent enactment of a law in Poland that prescribes
avoidance of expressions, thus implementing censorship of use of specific phrases,
as one component of a broader prohibition, “banning people from accusing Polandof Holocaust atrocities.” The Polish government prohibits language “referring toconcentration camps as ‘Polish death camps’ ” (Noack 2018).

4 C oncluding comment
Errare humanum est. Whether we interpret this in the Pope’s meaning that forgiveness, then, is divine, or perhaps even in Seneca’s meaning that, then, persistingis diabolical, the simple truth is that talk channels every interpersonal relationship. Interpersonal dominance, power if you like, will also so be channeled andsought to be accomplished by managing one’s own speech and possibly interferingin another’s speech. Language Management Theory models and strives at understanding in depth how speech is generated and managed—​this chapter’s topic ofpower in discourse included.
Interestingly, institutional power to oblige adjustment and eventually routinization of choice of variety is limited because talk must be overheard to be sanctioned,
that is to say, to be noted by a particular other as the negatively evaluated variety
in use. That simply cannot be done on a 24-​hour basis. Writing, however, is visible and therefore accessible to control. We shall keep talking as we please, yet weremain constrained by the necessity to navigate institutional requirements.

References
Beneš, M., Prošek, M., Smejkalová, K. & Štěpánová, V. (2018) Interaction between
language users and a language consulting centre: Challenges for language
management theory and research. In L. Fairbrother, J. Nekvapil & M. Sloboda(eds) The Language Management Approach: A Focus on Research Methodology.
Berlin: Peter Lang, 119–​140.
CITRA (2003, 2004) Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Institute of
Language and Literature.

Some remarks on power

367

Coupland, N., Coupland, J., Giles, H. & Henwood, K. (1988) Accommodating theelderly: Invoking and extending a theory. Language in Society 17 (1), 1–​41.
DeFrancis, J. (1994) On degendering English. Biography 17 (3), 296–​300.
de Varennes, F. (2016) Language, rights and opportunities: The role of languagein the inclusion and exclusion of indigenous peoples. International Journal on
Minority and Group Rights 23 (3), 281–​305.
Eilperin, J. & Sun, L. H. (2017) Trump administration targets certain words and thebureaucracy pushes back. The Washington Post, December 20, 2017. On WWW
at https://​www.was​hing​tonp​ost.com/​natio​nal/​hea​lth-​scie​nce/​trump-​adm​inis​
trat​ion-​targ​ets-​cert​ain-​words-​and-​the-​bure​aucr​acy-​pus​hes-​back/​2017/​12/​21.
Accessed April 2, 2020.
Elenius, L. (2016) Stiftsledningen och minoritetspolitiken [Church district management and minority politics]. In D. Lindmark & O. Sundström (eds) De historiska
relationerna mellan Svenska kyrkan och samerna: en vetenskaplig antologi [TheHistorical Relations between the Swedish Church and the Sámi People: A Scientific Anthology]. Skellefteå: Artos, 469–​515.
Fairbrother, L. (2009) Native speakers’ application of contact norms in interculturalcontact situations with English-​speaking, Chinese-​speaking and Portuguese-​speaking non-​native speakers of Japanese. In J. Nekvapil & T. Sherman (eds)
Language Management in Contact Situations: Perspectives from Three Continents.
Frankfurt on the Main: Peter Lang, 123–​150.
Giles, H. & Ogay, T. (2007) Communication accommodation theory. In B. B.
Whaley & W. Samter (eds) Explaining Communication: Contemporary Theories
and Exemplars. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum, 293–​310.
Giles, H. & St. Clair, R. N. (eds) (1979) Language and Social Psychology. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hirsch, Jr., E. D. (2016) Why Knowledge Matters: Rescuing Our Children from Failed
Educational Theories. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.
Jernudd, B. (2018) Questions submitted to two language cultivation agencies in
Sweden. In L. Fairbrother, J. Nekvapil & M. Sloboda (eds) The Language Management Approach: A Focus on Research Methodology. Berlin: Peter Lang, 101–​117.
Karlberg, M. (2005) The power of discourse and the discourse of power: Pursuingpeace through discourse intervention. International Journal of Peace Studies 10(1), 1–​25.
Kunsmann, P. (2013) Gender, status and power in discourse behavior of men andwomen. Linguistik Online 5 (1). doi: https://​doi.org/​10.13092/​lo.5.1017. Accessed
July 9, 2019.
Marriott, H. (2009) Japanese speakers’ management of transference behaviour inan Australian context. In J. Nekvapil & T. Sherman (eds) Language Management in Contact Situations: Perspectives from Three Continents. Frankfurt on the
Main: Peter Lang, 169–​184.

368

Björn Jernudd

Myrdal, G. (1968) Asian Drama: An Inquiry into the Poverty of Nations. Vol.
3. New York: The Twentieth Century Fund.
Nekvapil, J. (2006) From language planning to language management.
Sociolinguistica 20, 92–​104.
Nemoto, H. (2009) Negotiation of norms in academic contact situations. In J. Nekvapil& T. Sherman (eds) Language Management in Contact Situations: Perspectives
from Three Continents. Frankfurt on the Main: Peter Lang, 225–​243.
Noack, R. (2018) Polish president signs Holocaust bill, drawing rare U.S. rebuke.
The Washington Post, February 6, 2018. On WWW at https://​www.was​hing​tonp​
ost.com/​news/​wor​ldvi​ews/​wp/​2018/​02/​06/​pol​ish-​presid​ent-​to-​sign-​holoca​ust-​
bill-​desp​ite-​intern​atio​nal-​conce​rns/​. Accessed February 6, 2018.
Orwell, G. (1949) Nineteen Eighty-​Four: A Novel. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co.
Rubin, J., Jernudd, B. H., DasGupta, J., Fishman, J. A. & Ferguson, Ch. A. (eds) (1977)
Language Planning Processes. The Hague, Paris & New York: Mouton.
Sherman, T. (2009) Managing hegemony: Native English speakers in the Czech
Republic. In J. Nekvapil & T. Sherman (eds) Language Management in Contact
Situations: Perspectives from Three Continents. Frankfurt on the Main: Peter
Lang, 75–​96.
Swenson, K. (2017) ‘Long time coming’: Army returns remains of Arapaho children who died at assimilation school. The Washington Post, August 9, 2017. On
WWW at https://​www.was​hing​tonp​ost.com/​news/​morn​ing-​mix/​wp/​2017/​08/​
09/​a-​long-​time-​com​ing-​army-​retu​rns-​rema​ins-​of-​arap​aho-​child​ren-​who-​died-​
at-​assim​ilat​ion-​sch​ool-​in-​1800. Accessed August 27, 2017.
Tannen, D. (1987) Remarks on discourse and power. In L. Kedar (ed) Power ThroughDiscourse. Norwood: Ablex, 3–​10.
Teleman, U. (1979) Språkrätt [Right to Language]. Lund: Liberläromedel.
Yoshimitsu, K. (2009) Management of study differentials by Japanese students at
an Australian university. In J. Nekvapil & T. Sherman (eds) Language Management in Contact Situations: Perspectives from Three Continents. Frankfurt on the
Main: Peter Lang, 207–​224.
Yu, J. (2009) Kill the Indian, Save the Man. On WWW at http://​pabo​ok2.librar​ies.
psu.edu/​palit​map/​Carli​sleI​ndia​nSch​ool.html. Accessed August 27, 2017.
Zhang, Y. B. & Imamura, M. (2017) Communication Accommodation Theory andIntergroup Communication. Online Publication Date: July 2017. On WWW at
http://​commun​icat​ion.oxfor​dre.com/​view/​10.1093/​acref​ore/​. Accessed April
1, 2020.
Zimmerman, D. H. & West, C. (1975) Sex roles, interruptions and silences in conversation. In B. Thorne, & N. Henley (eds) Language and Sex: Difference andDominance. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 105–​129.

Indexacquisition planning 75, 324
actor /​actors 20–​32, 34, 73–​74,
76, 91, 94, 106, 110, 114, 127, 134,
144, 177–​86, 188–​90, 192–​97, 201,
203–​06, 209–​10, 213–​14, 218–​19,
221–​25, 237, 241–​43, 259, 293, 296–​
98, 302, 306, 309, 312, 316, 320–​23,
325–​26, 336–​37– actor with expertise 21–​25, 134,
298, 302, 312, 320, 322– actor with influence 21, 23–​25,
298, 302, 316, 320, 322– actor with interest 21, 23–​25,
134, 298, 302– actor with power 20–​21, 23–​26,
298, 306, 309, 322–​23– actor-​centered approach 177,
179–​80– social actor 15, 29, 79, 177, 180,
195, 198, 293–​98, 302, 305, 307,
309, 312, 320–​23
adjustment /​adjustments 15, 17, 19,
22–​25, 39, 45, 73, 77, 89, 91–​92, 94–​
95, 98, 116, 126, 130, 158, 180, 205–​
06, 224–​25, 229–​30, 238, 242, 244,
246–​47, 253–​54, 257–​58, 274, 282,
287–​88, 294, 296, 306, 312–​14, 317–​
20, 322, 329, 334–​35, 337–​39, 341–​
43, 345, 347–​50, 357–​58, 360–​66
Afrikaans 20, 27, 101–​02, 104–​05, 108–​18, 121–​22
agency 20–​21, 32–​34, 74, 97, 109,
157–​58, 161, 180–​82, 198, 201, 244,
249, 260, 270, 278–​81, 287, 289, 325,
357, 362–​63, 365–​67
Althusser, Louis 18
argumentation 8, 27, 73–​74, 78, 84–​
90, 92–​97, 195, 203, 285
austerity 28, 149, 151–​53, 155, 157,
161, 168–​69, 171–​76

authority 17–​22, 24–​25, 27, 31, 55–​56,
71, 73–​75, 86, 89–​96, 130, 133–​34,
144, 150, 155, 158, 183–​85, 190,
193–​94, 204–​05, 207–​08, 214, 230,
256, 260, 295, 297–​98, 305, 340, 360–​
62, 365–​66– linguistic authority 31, 73
bilingualism 8, 103, 121, 132, 148,
168, 173, 183, 216, 224, 254
Bourdieu, Pierre 18, 32, 278–​80,
282, 289
business 7–​8, 20, 29, 152, 158, 166,
216, 229, 239, 244–​49, 251–​52, 258–​
62, 287, 294, 305, 307, 316, 324, 329–​
31, 333–​40, 342, 346–​51, 353, 359– business efficiency 329–​31,
342, 349– business leaders 245, 258–​59– business people 29, 246, 249,
251–​52, 329–​30, 333–​35, 353
non–​Japanese business people(NJBP) 29, 329–​40, 342,
344, 346–​50
capital 18, 25, 95, 107, 152, 160–​61,
208, 279–​89, 312, 329–​34, 336–​37,
342, 344, 346
Central Europe 17, 20, 33, 49, 98, 120,
314, 352
communication 7–​8, 15, 18, 20, 22–​24, 29, 33, 38, 47, 49, 52–​53, 63–​64,
68, 70, 72–​73, 76, 78, 81, 98–​99,
105–​07, 112, 114, 117–​19, 146,
175–​76, 184, 191, 205, 207, 222–​23,
227–​28, 232, 237, 239–​40, 245, 247,
249–​50, 252–​53, 261–​62, 272–​73,
279, 285, 287, 291, 299–​302, 305,
317–​19, 324, 329–​35, 338, 342–​47,
349–​53, 357–​59, 363, 367–​68

370– academic communication 291– communication accommodation
theory (CAT) 357–​58, 367–​68– communication in theworkplace 329, 350
community of practice (CoP) 269–​70,
275, 277–​81, 283–​85, 288
companies which adopt English
as their corporate language(CECLs) 330–​31, 334–​37, 339–​42,
346–​47, 349
control 16–​20, 24, 38, 46, 82–​83,
94–​95, 165, 181, 184, 192, 206, 208,
224–​25, 229–​30, 259, 303, 330–​31,
334, 358–​59, 363, 365–​66
corporate language 251, 329–​30,
339
corpus planning 51, 59, 74–​75,
94, 180
Council for the Standard Croatian
Language Norm 27, 51–​52, 55, 59,
64, 67, 71–​72
Council of Europe 17, 193, 294, 305,
310, 321
Croatian 27, 33, 51–​52, 55–​72
Czech 8–​9, 16, 20, 22–​26, 31, 33,
43, 73–​75, 78–​81, 83–​84, 87–​88, 92–​
99, 132, 134, 146, 293–​94, 296,
298–​301, 303–​06, 308, 310–​11, 314–​
24, 326–​28
Czech Language Institute of the
Czech Academy of Sciences(CLI) 27, 73–​76, 82–​84, 87, 91–​95
Czech Republic 7–​9, 20, 29, 34, 49, 92,
99, 120, 126, 243, 260, 264, 293–​306,
311–​12, 314, 316–​21, 323–​28, 368
deviation /​deviations 15, 22–​23,
38–​39, 42, 45, 77, 79, 89, 125,
130–​31, 133, 143, 178, 205–​06,
225, 238, 242–​47, 249, 253, 258–​59,
261, 274, 276, 278–​80, 294, 296,
310, 313, 320, 337–​39, 341–​42, 345,
347, 364–​65

Index

discourse 8, 18, 26–​27, 29–​30, 32–​33,
41, 43, 45, 49, 53–​54, 76, 78, 80,
82–​83, 95–​96, 98, 101–​02, 105–​07,
110, 112, 114, 116, 118, 120, 178–​79,
181–​82, 191, 196, 198–​99, 201, 204,
207, 209–​10, 222–​23, 240, 242, 249,
264, 269–​70, 275, 277, 279, 286,
290–​91, 293–​94, 296–​98, 302–​03,
307, 317, 320, 322, 334, 350, 353,
357–​61, 363–​68
domain /​domains 16–​17, 28–​30,
101–​03, 111, 116, 132, 140, 155, 162,
165–​67, 178, 180–​81, 191, 196, 206–​
07, 223–​24, 229, 307, 338
education 8, 17, 22–​24, 28, 31, 33, 51,
55, 59, 63, 65, 78, 83, 92, 98, 101–​04,
106, 109, 111, 113, 118–​22, 150, 163,
165, 168–​70, 175, 178, 180, 192–​200,
228, 232, 237, 239–​44, 246–​52, 254–​
55, 258–​63, 265, 269, 279, 289, 291,
293–​315, 317, 319–​22, 324, 326–​27,
334, 350–​51, 353, 362–​64, 367– English education 237, 239–​40,
243–​44, 246–​47, 249–​52, 255–​56,
258–​61, 263, 265
emigration 153, 162–​65, 167, 171
endangered language /​languages
125, 149, 168, 171
English 7, 17, 20, 24, 27–​29, 34, 38,
48, 53, 98, 101–​22, 130–​31, 149, 157,
162, 165–​67, 204, 208, 211–​13, 217,
221, 226–​29, 237–​65, 269, 272–​75,
277–​80, 282, 286, 289, 291–​94, 296,
299–​302, 305–​18, 321, 324, 329–​
31, 333–​37, 339–​42, 344–​51, 353,
362, 367–​68
European Charter for Regional or
Minority Languages 17, 24–​25,
297, 302, 322, 324–​26
evaluation 8, 15, 22–​23, 38, 40, 76–​77,
79, 84–​85, 94, 125, 130, 144, 178,
180, 193, 205, 217, 224, 237–​38, 241–​42, 244–​45, 249, 253–​54, 257–​59,

Index264, 274, 276, 279–​80, 285, 290, 292,
294, 296, 313, 316–​18, 321–​22, 325,
330, 338–​39, 357–​58, 362, 365–​66
expectations 20, 42, 73, 192, 229, 247,
256, 258–​59, 270, 285, 294, 296, 310,
313, 320, 323
Foucault, Michel 18, 20, 32, 91–​93,
96, 181
Framework Educational Program forPrimary Education (FEPPE) 296,
306–​10, 312, 314, 325
Gaeltacht 27, 149–​51, 153, 155–​75
Gaeltacht Act 2012 154–​57, 159, 171
German 7–​8, 17, 20, 23–​24, 27, 29,
31–​32, 45, 48, 92, 96, 117, 125–​34,
136, 138, 140–​41, 143–​44, 146–​47,
198, 204, 211–​12, 243, 260, 262, 293,
295–​328– as a foreign language 7, 293,
296–​97, 304–​05, 311–​12, 315, 319,
321, 324–25– as a language of instruction 303–​04, 310, 322– as a minority language 29, 293,
296–​97, 304–​05, 308, 310–​11,
321
Government Council for National
Minorities 297–​98, 302–​05, 308–​10,
319, 321, 326–​28
Gramsci, Antonio 18
hegemony 18, 28, 34, 112, 182,
358, 368high school 28, 137–​39, 227, 237,
239–​41, 243, 249, 251, 253–​55, 257,
260, 263–​65, 283
house number sign 28, 203–​05, 209,
211, 213, 216–​17, 221–​27, 229
identity /​identities 9, 16, 20, 23–​26,
29, 46, 69, 71–​72, 96, 102, 106–​07,

371

110, 117, 119–​21, 170, 183, 191,
195–​96, 198–​200, 211, 220–​24, 227,
240, 267–​71, 275, 279–​81, 283, 287–​
92, 326, 357– L2 identity 269, 279
interests 7–​9, 11, 15–​31, 34, 37–​41,
44, 46, 51–​54, 56, 64, 70, 73–​74,
77, 79, 81–​84, 91, 94–​95, 101–​
02, 107–​09, 113–​16, 149, 151–​54,
167–​68, 177, 179–​82, 184–​85, 195,
197, 203–​06, 213–​14, 218, 222,
224, 229, 237–​39, 241, 243–​44, 247–​52, 254, 257–​59, 264,
267–​71, 274–​77, 279–​88, 293, 296–​
97, 302–​03, 306–​07, 309, 316–​20,
329, 331–​32, 334–​35, 338–​40, 342,
346, 349–​50– economic interests 16–​17, 28, 53,
82, 197, 248, 316, 318, 320– pedagogical interests 247,
249, 258– political interests 16, 108, 179,
237, 248–​49, 258
interview 8, 20, 45, 55, 85, 96, 112,
141, 151, 156, 160, 177–​79, 185–​86,
189–​91, 194, 197, 200, 206, 225, 230,
243–​44, 251, 253, 255, 260, 272, 274,
276, 278–​80, 284, 286, 329, 333–​36,
340, 342–​49, 352, 361
investment 29, 110, 114, 153–​54,
239, 267–​68, 270–​71, 277, 279, 281–​
83, 285–​91
Irish 27–​28, 149–​51, 153–​68,
170–​75
Japan 7–​9, 19–​20, 28–​29, 32, 47,
50, 237–​49, 253–​56, 258, 260–​65,
267–​68, 271–​74, 276–​78, 280–​85,
287–​88, 329–​37, 345, 349–​52
Japanese 7–​8, 19–​21, 29, 72, 237–​
42, 244–​50, 252–​58, 260–​65, 267–​68,
270–​74, 277, 280, 282–​86, 291, 329–​
53, 367–​68

372

language conflict 16, 30, 32, 182, 199
language consulting center (LCC) 27,
73–​96, 98
language cultivation 52, 73–​74,
77–​79, 82–​84, 86, 95, 97–​98,
363, 367
language ideology /​ideologies 18, 20,
26–​28, 30–​31, 33, 35, 37, 39–​44, 47–​
51, 58, 64–​65, 68, 71–​74, 76–​79, 82,
84–​86, 88, 91, 93–​99, 108, 114, 117,
120, 179, 189, 197–​98, 203, 211
language law 47, 92, 177, 179, 184–​
91, 200–​01, 204, 207–​08, 214–​15,
217–​21, 223–​26, 228–​29, 231–​32
language legislation 177, 188–​89,
192, 197
language maintenance 26, 34, 44, 48–​
49, 146–​47, 149, 163, 175, 233
language management (LM) 7–​9, 11,
15, 20, 22, 26–​27, 32–​34, 37–​49, 52–​
54, 59–​60, 64, 67, 72–​74, 76–​77, 79,
96–​99, 101–​02, 107–​09, 112, 114–​16,
120, 125, 128, 132, 146–​47, 150–​52,
154, 156–​57, 160, 165, 167–​68, 175,
177–​79, 181–​84, 188–​89, 191–​92,
195–​96, 198–​99, 201, 203–​05, 226,
231–​33, 237–​38, 242, 253, 259–​62,
264, 267, 270, 274–​75, 277, 279, 281,
283, 285–​89, 293, 296–​98, 302, 307,
325–​26, 328, 335, 337–​42, 349, 351–​
52, 357, 363–​68– language management cycle 28,
101, 130, 203, 205, 213–​15,
242, 338– language management in theworkplace 329, 337– language management process
17, 21, 25–​26, 28, 30–​31, 75–​77,
85, 101, 116, 180, 184, 203–​04,
210, 215, 222, 224, 226, 229, 237,
239, 242–​44, 258–​59, 298, 357– Language Management Theory(LMT) 7, 9, 15, 19, 21, 26–​31, 37–​
44, 46–​47, 49, 51–​56, 60, 68,

Index

72–​74, 77, 96, 98, 101, 103, 107–​09, 112, 114, 116, 120, 125–​26,
133, 146, 178, 199, 203–​06, 231–​
32, 238, 242–​44, 257, 259–​60, 264,
267–​68, 274, 281, 283, 287–​88,
291, 293, 295, 312, 326, 337–​38,
350, 352, 366– organized language management
15, 21–​22, 27–​31, 51–​54, 59, 64,
66, 68, 70–​71, 73–​74, 76, 94–​95,
108–​09, 125–​26, 134–​35, 137–​40,
143, 177–​79, 195, 207, 320, 322,
335, 357, 361–​63, 365– post-​interaction management
79–​80– pre-​interaction management 24,
79–​80, 352– simple language management 15,
21–​22, 24, 27, 29, 31, 43, 51–​52,
56, 59–​61, 69, 71, 73, 76, 94, 108–​09, 116, 126, 131, 138, 141–​42, 357
language norm 27, 30, 51–​52, 55, 59,
63–​64, 67, 71–​72, 78–​79, 84, 98
language policy /​policies 7–​8, 21,
26–​29, 32, 49, 52, 54, 58, 62, 69, 71,
76, 83, 87, 95–​96, 98, 101, 103, 108–​09, 111–​12, 114–​16, 118–​21, 138,
145, 149, 151, 154, 157, 159, 167–​68,
174–​75, 177–​85, 189–​92, 195–​201,
203–​06, 210, 219–​20, 223, 225, 227–​30, 232, 235, 238, 242, 257, 260, 264,
291, 295, 307, 311, 314, 325–​26, 329,
331, 334, 339, 341, 349–​50, 361– covert language policy /​policies 149, 151, 157– overt language policy /​policies 149, 307
language politics 27, 30, 69, 101–​03,
108, 111, 199, 325
language problem see also problem 7,
33–​34, 39, 47–​50, 52–​56, 59, 61, 64,
66, 72, 74–​81, 94–​95, 99, 117, 121,
173, 175, 178–​80, 199, 201, 203–​07, 209–​10, 213–​14, 217, 220–​26,

Index

228–​32, 238, 242, 249, 261–​62, 296,
322, 351
language rights 50, 200, 220, 358
language shift 49, 103, 121, 125,
136, 149–​50, 162, 164–​65, 168, 170,
172, 175
language use 9, 18, 24–​25, 27–​29, 40,
47, 51–​53, 61–​64, 69–​71, 78, 125,
178, 183, 197–​98, 203–​08, 210–​12,
214–​15, 220, 222, 224, 226, 229, 295,
329, 331, 333–​34, 338, 350, 364–​65
language variety /​varieties 22, 38,
42, 70, 334
Lanstyák, István 22, 33, 42–​45, 48,
78–​79, 94, 97, 205, 207, 209–​10
Latvia (also Liepāja) 7, 18, 28, 203–​22,
225–​29, 231–​32
lingua franca 27, 101–​03, 105–​09,
112–​13, 116–​22, 245–​46, 282, 309,
334, 346–​49– English as a lingua franca(ELF) 27, 101–​03, 105–​09,
112, 116–​22, 245, 282, 309,
334, 347
linguistic landscape (LL) 28, 33, 203–​08, 210–​14, 217, 220–​21, 223, 227–​
33
literacy 29, 57–​58, 245, 248, 267–​72,
274–​75, 277, 279, 281–​83, 286–​90,
292, 324, 362– L1 literacy 267–​68, 272,
280, 287–​88– L2 literacy 268, 281, 283, 285,
288
– literacy practices 267–​68, 271–​
72, 275, 277, 280–​83, 285–​89
Lower Sorbian 27, 125, 128, 137, 141,
143, 145–​47
macro level (macro-​level) 19, 22,
26–​27, 29, 37, 39, 43, 51, 76, 101,
103, 108–​10, 114, 116, 125–​26, 149–​
50, 160, 165, 167, 181, 203, 207, 222,

373

224, 229, 242, 261, 294, 296–​98, 305,
320, 322, 335– macro-​level management 109,
114
meso level (meso-​level) 21, 101, 103,
109, 114, 116, 203, 225, 261
micro level (micro-​level) 19–​22, 26,
29, 37–​40, 44, 51, 76, 101, 103, 109,
114, 116, 125–​26, 160, 205, 222, 225,
229, 241–​43, 259, 261, 274–​75, 296–​
98, 320, 322, 335– micro-​level management 109,
114, 116
minority /​minorities 16, 18, 20, 24,
28, 33, 140, 180, 182, 196, 199,
203–​04, 213, 215–​17, 224, 228, 232,
297–​98, 302–​06, 308, 310, 319–​21,
325–​26, 333, 367– allochthon minority /​minorities 18, 24–​25– autochthon minority /​minorities 17–​18, 24–​25
minority language /​languages 8,
16–​19, 24–​27, 29–​31, 123, 125, 139,
143–​44, 149, 155, 168, 173, 178, 193,
216, 220, 225, 231, 233, 293, 295–​97,
302, 304–​05, 308, 310–​11, 321–​
22, 324–​26
mother tongue +​two 311–​12, 314
motivation 15, 31, 64, 80, 172, 213,
224, 245, 247, 290, 293, 315, 335, 365– L2 motivational self system 267–​
68, 270, 290
nationalism 31–​32, 110, 117, 122, 199,
262, 325, 361
Nekvapil, Jiří 11, 15, 19, 21, 32–​34, 39,
42–​44, 47, 49, 74, 76–​77, 79, 82–​83,
96–​99, 101, 103, 108–​09, 116, 120,
125–​26, 146–​47, 178–​79, 199, 205–​
06, 231–​33, 242, 260–​61, 264, 271,
274, 291, 295–​96, 303, 324–​26, 335,
338, 342, 351–​52, 357, 366–​68

374

neoliberalism 28, 149, 151–​54, 160,
166, 169, 171–​73
network /​networks 29, 46, 53, 76,
113, 162, 171, 180, 182, 199, 272,
274, 276, 281–​82, 284–​86, 288, 293,
296, 321, 335, 338, 347–​48– individual network of practice(INoP) 29, 267, 269–​70, 275–​76,
278–​79, 281–​86, 288, 292
Neustupný, Jiří V. 15–​17, 19, 21,
32–​33, 38–​39, 41, 47, 49, 52–​55, 60,
70–​72, 74, 77, 79, 82–​83, 91, 97–​99,
101, 103, 108, 119, 126, 132, 146,
178, 180, 198, 205, 231, 238, 242,
259, 261, 264, 267–​68, 274, 290–​91,
295, 303, 325–​26, 331, 334–​35, 337–​
38, 351–​53
new language 49, 112, 115, 184, 186,
188–​91, 199, 230, 263, 362
norm /​norms 15, 17, 19, 21–​25, 29–​
31, 38–​40, 42, 45–​46, 48, 51–​52, 55,
59, 62, 66, 77–​81, 89, 96–​97, 106,
125–​26, 131–​34, 143, 178, 185, 205–​08, 215, 219, 223–​25, 229–​30, 237,
244, 247, 258, 274–​75, 277, 279–​81,
283, 285–​86, 288, 306, 329–​30, 333,
337–​39, 342–​49, 358, 362–​65, 368– communicative norms 16, 19–​20,
206, 278, 280, 347– contact norms 20, 367
noting 15, 22, 33, 38, 49, 54, 59, 77,
80, 85, 91, 125, 130, 224, 232, 238,
244–​45, 249, 274–​75, 277–​79, 285–​
86, 313, 318, 320, 338, 357, 362, 366
official signage 203, 207
orthography reform /​reforms 23–​
25, 142otherness 262, 278, 362
policy 15, 21, 27–​28, 42, 59, 94, 109,
115–​16, 126, 132, 139, 149–​55, 157,
159, 167–​69, 174, 179, 181–​82, 187,

Index

196–​99, 228, 237–​61, 263–​65, 295,
305, 307, 321, 323, 326, 336, 338,
340, 349, 351, 362– education policy 237–​39, 243–​44,
249, 251–​52, 256, 258, 261–​63– language education policy 7,
237–​39, 241–​44, 250, 255, 258–​
60, 265– language policy 7–​8, 21, 27–​29,
32, 49, 52, 54, 58, 62, 69, 71, 76, 83,
87, 95–​96, 98, 101, 103, 108–​09,
111–​12, 114–​16, 118–​21, 138, 145,
149, 151, 154, 157, 159, 168, 174–​75, 177–​84, 189–​92, 195, 197–​201,
203–​06, 210, 219–​20, 223, 225,
227–​30, 232, 238, 242, 257, 260,
264, 291, 311, 314, 325–​26, 331,
334, 339, 341, 349– policy formulation 244, 252, 259– policy-​evaluation
post-​implementation 25, 28, 39,
191, 237, 257–​60, 338
pre-​implementation 237,
254, 259–​60– policy-implementation 109, 237,
239, 243, 249, 254–​59– policy-makers 52, 101, 114, 223,
241, 244, 247–​48, 255–​56, 258–​59– policy-​making process 28, 237,
244, 249
poststructuralist 267, 269–​70
power 11, 15–​16, 18–​33, 37–​44,
46–​47, 49–​52, 63–​64, 71, 74, 77,
91–​93, 96, 98, 101–​04, 106–​07,
109, 114, 116, 118, 126–​27, 133–​35,
137–​38, 144, 149–​55, 168, 172, 177,
179–​83, 197–​98, 203–​04, 206, 213,
227, 229–​30, 237–​39, 241, 243–​45,
248–​52, 257–​59, 261–​62, 264, 267–​
71, 274–​89, 293, 296–​98, 302, 306,
309, 322–​23, 329, 331–​32, 334–​35,
338–​40, 342, 344–​46, 348–​51,
353, 357–​68

Index– power dynamics 15, 101, 103,
106–​07, 116, 239, 241, 251,
258, 288– power relations 18, 27–​29, 41–​
42, 44, 77, 91–​93, 109, 177, 181–​82, 197, 237–​38, 243, 259, 267–​70,
275–​80, 284–​85, 287–​88, 293,
296–​97, 302, 329, 334–​35, 338,
344–​46, 348–​50
practice 20, 23, 29, 33, 37, 42–​44,
47, 49–​50, 52, 59–​61, 69–​70, 72,
91–​92, 98–​99, 101, 103, 108, 112,
120, 133–​34, 142, 152, 157, 162, 173,
175, 182, 189–​90, 197–​98, 204, 206,
210–​11, 217, 223–​25, 228–​29, 231,
237, 239, 242, 252, 256, 259, 261–​62,
264–​65, 269, 275, 279, 281, 283,
285–​86, 288–​91, 322, 334–​35, 338,
340–​41, 349–​51
prescription 149, 151, 357, 360
problem 39, 53, 59–​64, 67–​69, 73, 80,
83, 87, 125, 133, 138, 144, 205–​07,
209–​10, 219–​20, 223, 225–​26, 239,
265, 280, 295, 313–​14, 318, 320, 331,
333, 337–​38, 342, 345, 350, 359
process 7, 11, 15, 17, 19, 22, 26, 29, 32,
37–​39, 41–​48, 52–​54, 58, 73, 76–​77,
82, 90–​91, 95, 99, 103–​04, 108–​09,
116, 119, 127, 136, 143–​44, 146, 149–​
50, 156, 177–​80, 184, 191, 195–​98,
204–​05, 209–​10, 213, 219–​20, 223–​
24, 231, 238, 241–​44, 250–​52, 258–​
62, 267–​72, 274–​76, 279–​80, 286–​89,
293, 296, 303, 307, 318, 320, 322, 324,
337–​39, 351, 361–​62, 364–​66, 368– decision-​making process 179–​80,
184, 195, 197, 243–​44, 251, 258–​
60, 307, 324
purism 41, 49, 57, 65, 70, 78–​79, 83,
85, 92, 94, 125, 130, 132, 134, 138–​
39, 143, 146, 148, 197
revitalization 8–​9, 28, 125, 143, 149–​
51, 154–​56, 167–​68, 172, 174, 325

375

second mandatory foreign
language 299, 304, 306, 310–​11,
314, 319, 322
Slovak 23–​26, 33, 321
social positioning 29, 270, 275, 278–​
79, 281, 288
socialization 29, 267–​72, 274–​77, 279,
281, 283, 287–​88, 290, 292– L2 socialization 275–​77, 279, 287
Sorbian 8, 26–​27, 32, 37, 42, 44–​46,
48, 125–​29, 132–​35, 138–​41, 143–​47,
198, 262, 351
South Africa 9, 20, 27, 101–​05, 107–​
13, 116–​22, 172, 242
specialist / specialists 225, 249, 251,
258–​59, 332, 344, 361–​62
Språkrätt 363, 368
standardization 7, 9, 17, 22, 52, 57–​
58, 64, 96, 135, 229, 262, 365
status planning 51, 59, 74, 180
Stellenbosch University (SU) 27, 101–​
05, 109–​16, 121
street name /​names 203–​05, 207–​09,
211–​14, 216, 218–​22, 225–​26, 228–​29
student /​students 11, 19, 21, 29, 101–​
05, 109–​18, 163, 196, 230, 237–​39,
241–​43, 246–​50, 252–​55, 257–​59,
261–​62, 264–​65, 267–​83, 285–​92,
301, 307, 317, 319, 332, 353, 368– international students 242,
264, 332– Japanese students 241, 248, 262,
270–​74, 277, 291, 353, 368
study abroad 7, 29, 267, 290–​91
switching 20, 45, 339
teacher / teachers 22, 81, 104, 134,
139, 189, 194, 196–​97, 227, 237, 239–​
41, 246–​47, 250, 253–​59, 263–​65,
274–​76, 278, 298, 307, 313, 315, 327,
359, 362–​64
translingual literacy 9, 267, 269,
271, 288–​89

376

Index

translingual practice 108, 117, 267–​
70, 279, 288–​89, 351

unemployment 28, 149, 151, 153, 157,
160–​62, 168, 174, 316

Údarás na Gaeltachta (The Gaeltacht
Authority) 150, 155–​58, 160–​61,
173, 175–​76
Ukraine 8, 28, 145, 177–​79, 183–​86, 189–​201

Weber, Max 91, 99
workplace 7, 29, 32, 42, 48, 132, 146,
198, 227, 262, 329, 331–​37, 339, 342–​
43, 345–​46, 349–​51

Prague Papers on Language, Society and Interaction
Prager Arbeiten zur Sprache, Gesellschaft und Interaktion
Edited by/Herausgegeben von Jiří Nekvapil, Tamah Sherman and Petr Kaderka

Vol.
Vol.
Vol.
Vol.
Vol.
Vol.

1 Nekvapil, Jiří / Sherman, Tamah (eds): Language Management in Contact Situations.
Perspectives from Three Continents. 2009.
2 Wilson, James: Moravians in Prague. A Sociolinguistic Study of Dialect Contact in the Czech
Republic. 2010.
3 Barát, Erzsébet / Studer, Patrick / Nekvapil, Jiří (eds): Ideological Conceptualizations of Language. Discourses of Linguistic Diversity. 2013.
4 Marián Sloboda / Petteri Laihonen / Anastassia Zabrodskaja (eds): Sociolinguistic Transitionin Former Eastern Bloc Countries. Two Decades after the Regime Change. 2016.
5 Lisa Fairbrother / Jiří Nekvapil / Marián Sloboda (eds.): The Language Management Approach. A Focus on Research Methodology. 2017.
6 Marek Nekula / Tamah Sherman / Halina Zawiszová (eds.): Interests and Power in Language Management. 2022.

www.peterlang.com