## Henning Bergenholtz & Mia Johnsen*

## Language Policy and Communication Policy - Same Same but Different?

## Abstract

Surprisingly, no attempts have yet been made to relate language policy and communica  tion policy. This is the case in theoretical contributions on language policy and theoretical contributions on communication policy alike, none of which mentions the other concept. It is also the case in existing language policies where the term communication policy  is  not  referred  to  at  all.  Likewise,  the  term  language  policy  is  not  found  in communication policies, even when a particular company or organisation has a language policy as well as a communication policy. This contribution aims to defi  ne both terms and subsequently to establish the relation between them.

## 1. There are at least two signifi  cant differences

The second half of the 20 th  century saw the formation of a number of new composites derived from the term policy ,  e.g. educational policy, children' s policy, women's policy, environmental policy and immigration policy . These new derivations were related to key areas in the political  decision-making  processes  of  international,  national  or  local authorities. From the late 1980s, the scope of such derivations was broadened to include aspects such as planning and decision-making in companies, organisations, schools and other non-political groups. Examples include senior policy, smoking policy, alcohol policy and stress policy .  Along with this development, the scope of older, purely political terms has also been broadened to include planning and decision-making in companies etc. This development is social as well as linguistic, and it does not just apply to the Danish language, nor has it only occurred in Denmark. The group of new derivations also comprises the terms language policy and communication policy .

*   Henning Bergenholtz Handelshøjskolen i Århus Fuglesangs Allé 4 DK-8210  Århus V hb@asb.dk

*  Mia Johnsen Handelshøjskolen i Århus Fuglesangs Allé 4 DK-8210  Århus V miajohnsen@gmail.com

Hermes - Journal of Language and Communication Studies no 37-2006

95

As a number of Google searches (13 November 2005) reveal, both terms are used frequently and approximately with the same frequency:

| • sprogpolitik                                      |         |
|-----------------------------------------------------|---------|
| (Danish term for language policy and politics)      |  29,200 |
| • kommunikationspolitik                             |         |
| (Danish term for communication policy and politics) |  35,900 |
| • language policy                                   | 637,000 |
| • language policies                                 | 118,000 |
| • language politics                                 | 123,000 |
| • communication policy                              | 292,000 |
| • communication policies                            | 101,000 |
| • communication politics                            |  43,700 |

Thus, the terms sprogpolitik and kommunikationspolitik occur with almost the same frequency in Danish Internet texts, whereas the terms language  policy and language  politics 1 are  almost  twice  as  frequent as the corresponding terms communication policy and communication politics in  English texts. These statistics are not particularly interesting as such; they merely indicate that the terms are used with the same frequency as other policies, cf. alcohol policy , which has a frequency of 622,000. A closer look at the individual texts, however, reveals with remarkable clarity that the occurrence of both terms in the same text is extremely rare. To be more exact, this only occurs in 370 texts on the entire Internet, and in these relatively few texts, we have found no attempts to defi  ne or relate the two terms. In texts on language policy , a somewhat unmotivated reference to a 'corporate communication policy' occurs (e.g. in a review of the FAO language policy (FAO 1999). Similarly, this is seen in texts on communication policy where language policy is merely mentioned, but not thematised. This trend corresponds to the division into two distinct groups with an interest in the subject: One discusses language policy without the slightest mention of communication policy . This group consists of politicians, public media, linguists and parts of companies. The other discusses communication policy without mentioning language policy . This group comprises business economists, communication scientists and parts of companies 2

1 In the following sections, we will not take into account the English differentiation between policy and politics, but rather, in accordance with common usage in Danish, German, French, Spanish, Dutch etc., solely use the term language policy to refer to theory as well as planning and implementation. Furthermore, the term language policy will be used as an overall term for the German concepts of Sprachpolitik and Sprachenpolitik, cf. Bergenholtz (2004).

The exact same trend appears in the Danish and Swedish government proposals on language policy. The term communication occurs a few times, though much less frequently than the term language . Similarly, the term communication policy does not occur at all, only the term language policy . In the case of ministries, departments or local authorities, plenty of communication policies have been implemented, cf. Møller Nielsen (2003). No such thing can be found in the actual legislation, however, neither in the form of acts nor executive orders. Although a demand for an act on communication policy has been put forward (Rosholm 2002), this appears to be a catchy headline rather than a serious, or even realistic, proposal. Legislation on language policy, on the other hand, already exists or is being prepared in several countries, including Denmark (Kulturministeriet 2003) and Sweden (Utbildnings- och kulturdepartementet 2005). Common to both proposals is the lack of a defi  nition of the basic term as they merely describe a number of problems and possible solutions to the problems. In the Swedish proposal from 29 September 2005, the following issues are raised along with the proposed solutions; the primary focus being on interlingual measures, but towards the end of the proposal, intralingual issues relating to the Swedish language are also mentioned (freely translated by HB/MJ):

The linguistic situation in Sweden has changed in a number of different ways. Five languages have been awarded the status of national minority languages. Far more than one million people with a non-Swedish background live in Sweden, and for many of those, Swedish is a secondary language. Furthermore, Sweden is experiencing an increasing use of English in more and more areas.

2 The very few examples of both terms occurring simultaneously do not contradict the trend described, particularly as a clear defi  nition and distinction is not given in such texts; either because the author does not fi  nd this necessary or because the terms might be perceived as synonyms, cf. Rosenmeier (2005, 115-140).

Thus, Sweden is a multilingual country, but at the same time, it remains a class-divided society. Access to a language that can be used in public life is highly unequal.

The Government is of the opinion that a comprehensive Swedish language policy is necessary in order to promote the Swedish language, to grant everybody the opportunity of aquiring the Swedish language, and to grant users of sign language and of the recognised national minority languages the opportunity of using, developing and, in certain cases, reacquiring their languages. This language policy aims to take into account the overall linguistic situation in the country. This also includes taking into account the requirement of those with a different native language than Swedish to maintain and develop their native languages. In the view of the sociological tendency and the trend towards internationalisation,  it  is  imperative  that  the  opportunity  to acquire knowledge of English and other foreign languages is open to everyone. The linguistic abundance already present in Sweden is an important resource in this connection.

A living democracy in which the citizens participate in the public debate and give voice to their opinions presupposes clear and comprehensible  communication  from  public  authorities.  This  supports  the feeling of public security and promotes effi  ciency in the public administration. The same is true for Swedish texts produced in EU institutions. (Utbildnings- och kulturdepartementet 2005)

This interest on the part of the governments is refl  ected in the media, not just in Sweden and Denmark, but also in Norway, Iceland, Germany, Canada, Belgium, Austria etc. etc. Forming a general view of all journalistic contributions in the newspapers of these countries seems practically  impossible. This  public  debate  not  only  involves  government proposals, but also issues related to language policy on a national level as well as language policies for specifi  c companies or international organisations such as the EU.

## 2. What is language policy?

The public interest in language policy is refl  ected in a scientifi  c interest, more specifi  cally  a  linguistic  interest. Although  language  policy  was discussed by linguists before becoming part of the public debate, it has now become a fashionable trend in linguistics in the light of the relatively new public interest. The scope of this article does not allow us to relate the conceptual development of terms such as language planning, language prescription, language cultivation, language death etc.

In the following sections of this contribution, we put forward our suggested defi  nitions of the relevant terms. In this connection, we will cite some of the recognised and applied alternative terms as synonyms to the terms suggested by us, but a detailed historical and systematic account will not be given.

Likewise, no detailed references to existing defi  nitions of language policy will be given; instead we refer to Bergenholtz (2003), Bergenholtz/Tarp (2005a) and Bergenholtz (2006). Here, we shall focus on the above-mentioned, and rather surprising, lack of a conceptual defi  nition in a very large share of existing linguistic contributions on the subject. In practice, many of these contributions regard language selection and, particularly,  the  protection  of  small  or  endangered  languages  as language policy . Like in the following defi  nition they are normally based on a conception that does not differ markedly from language planning , or, to be more exact, status planning :

## language policy

Many countries have a language policy designed to favour or discourage the use of a particular language or set of languages. Although nations historically have used language policies most often to promote one offi  cial  language  at  the  expense  of  others,  many  countries  now have policies designed to protect and promote regional and ethnic languages whose viability is threatened. (Wikipedia 2005a)

Such a defi  nition of language policy as a purely interlingual matter does not include the concept known as corpus planning, language guide or communication-optimising language policy. The latter  is  the  kind  of language policy primarily implemented by local authorities, companies and organisations. In contributions on language policy as a purely intralingual matter, interlingual dimensions are ignored, and very often, the only type of language policy discussed is style selection as defi  ned by the relevant genre, as in the following example from a Danish ministry report:

A language policy may state that the authority is to communicate with its recipients in a friendly, concise, clear and purposeful manner, and that the written communication should present the authority as modern and service-oriented. The linguistic norms may include using short sentences, avoiding the use of loanwords as far as possible, using the active  voice  with  pronouns  such  as  'you',  putting  the  information most important to the recipient fi  rst etc. (Ministeriet for Videnskab, Teknologi og Udvikling 1997, 4)

These two typical examples are not wrong as such; they are, however,  rather  inadequate  for  forming  a  general  view  of  the  concept language policy .  More  light  is  shed  on  the  subject  by  Bergenholtz/Bisgaard/Brunsborg/Kwichmann (2003, 18-20), who propose a differentiation between a general language policy covering interlingual language selection on the one hand, and a language-specifi  c language policy covering intralingual selection on the other. These two principal types are divided into subtypes:

## General language policy

- (1)  Language selection in an international context

Choosing the appropriate language(s) in international organisations such as the UN, the EU, Red Cross and international groups. Often, the choice depends on the situation.

- (2)  Language selection in groups, companies and organisations

Choosing the appropriate language(s) in groups, companies and organisations or at universities in a given country if the need arises to choose one or more working language(s) and/or language(s) used for negotiation and documentation, e.g. if many of the employees, students or partners do not master the offi  cial language of the country in question.

- (3)  Language selection in a national or regional context

Choosing the appropriate language(s) on various ceremonial occasions. This is necessary in countries with more than one offi  cial  language, e.g. Austria, cf. Klagenfurter Erklärung zur österreichischen Sprachenpolitik, 27 October 2001. It also implies choosing the language(s) of instruction in various subjects and at different educational stages. As is apparent from the Austrian and the Swedish language policies, the promotion of sign language may also be included in a national language policy.

- (4)  Language  selection  in  a  national  context  in  relation  to  language teach  ing

Choosing the languages to be taught as compulsory or optional languages. It includes the choice of whether to teach the native languages of refugees and immigrants.

- (5)  Defence of a national language

The kind of language preservation or purism exerted in countries such as Iceland, the Faroe Islands and, in principle, France.

- (6)  Attacks on a national language

The partial or complete banning of a particular language. This often happens in occupied, conquered or colonised areas, e.g. the Turkish part of Kurdistan.

## Specifi  c language policy

- (7)  General suggestions on how to optimise communication in a certain language

General suggestions on how to improve the linguistic style, particularly in connection with the production of written texts. Such proposals have been put forward by a small group of organisations, groups and companies and concern issues such as the use of technical terms, loanwords and composites as well as choices concerning voice and syntax. Suggestions on stylistic aspects are often a consequence of the company's or organisation's values, particularly the vision and mission.

- (8)  Descriptive, proscriptive or prescriptive suggestions on specifi  c linguistic units

Guidelines and regulations on the national or regional levels, e.g. decisions issued by the language council of a given country or by a  committee consisting of representatives from different countries with the same offi  cial language, as in the case of the German spelling reform. Likewise, a number of companies and organisations  have  implemented  decisions  on  specifi  c  linguistic problems, often with the intention of achieving consistency in the production of texts.

Although this classifi  cation of various types of language policy is rather extensive, it is incorrect in at least one respect and inadequate in at least one other. It is incorrect to classify purism as a subtype of the general language policy, i.e. as a form of interlingual language policy, as this is an intralingual phenomenon. It entails opposition to and bans on loanwords on the assumption that a language containing (too) many loanwords may become an endangered language which, as is the case for small languages, may fall into disuse either wholly or partly. This is not the case, and purism is thus rather an ideological crusade to keep a language free of loanwords - in other words, to keep it pure, hence the term purism. Yet, the issue remains an intralingual one applying to one language only. Incidentally, several languages contain a larger proportion of loanwords than non-loanwords, e.g. English or Indonesian, none of which can be classifi  ed as an endangered language. The second problem is the fact that the relation between language policy and communication policy is not taken into account. Are these two areas completely unrelated? Or is language policy a proper subset of communication policy, or is it perhaps the other way around? In order to answer these questions, we must fi  rst turn our attention to the general conception of the term communication policy.

## 3. What is communication policy?

As is the case in written contributions on language policy, contributions on or involving communication policy are generally characterised by the lack of a defi  nition, let alone a clear defi  nition. Therefore, we intend to study a number of existing communication policies and arrive at a defi  nition based on their contents. Firstly, however, we fi  nd it relevant to cite one of the few existing defi  nitions. Whereas a Google search on defi  ne:language policy does not yield any results, a search on defi  ne:Kommunikationspolitik yields the following result: 'Die Kommunikationspolitik ist eine Funktion der Betriebswirtschaft.' (Wikipedia 2005b). This Wikipedia-defi  nition continues as follows:

Sie  stellt  innerhalb  der Unternehmensführung  aus  der  Sicht  des Kunden (vergl.  Marketing)  den  Bereich  zwischen  der  Produktpolitik und der Preisfi  ndung einerseits sowie der Vertriebspolitik bei der Verteilung einer Leistung andererseits dar. Sie bildet somit das Bindeglied  zwischen  unternehmerischer  Initiative  und  verkäuferischer Umsetzung im Markt. Kommunikationspolitik setzt sich aus folgenden Bereichen zusammen: Werbung, Verkaufsförderung, Public Relations, Sponsoring, Messen, Events, Verkaufsgesprächsführung

This defi  nition is seen purely from a business economics perspective and is consistent with the views of Philip Kotler and Kevin Keller, who describe communication policy as a function of marketing (Kotler/Keller 2006: 534-562). According to Kotler & Keller, the implementation of an effective communication policy is a means to establish a dialogue with current and potential stakeholders with a view to creating a positive, comprehensive image of the company and its products. The communication policy can thus be used to achieve the company's goals and visions. An effective communication policy will also ensure that the company's message is heard, and as such, it may contribute to the company's fi  nancial position.

Although these theoretical views on communication policy are interesting and highly relevant, most communication policies are, in practice,  fi  rmly  rooted  in  the  visions  and  values  of  a  company  or  an  organisation as well as the choices, directions or prohibitions concerning communication channels, places, participants and strategies. The following section will study a number of concrete communication policies to establish the scope of such policies.

An example of a very clear and comprehensible communication policy outlining the participants, purposes and communication channels is the communication policy of the European Court of Auditors (2002). The overall description is as follows: 'Communication policy covers the  process  of  communicating the European Court of Auditors' role, work and the results it obtains to the outside world.' The communication policy then elaborates on this overall description by mentioning the three main groups of participants, i.e. other institutions and member states, the public and the media. In the next section of the communication policy, the purpose is described as 'following the principles of openness and transparency as well as to ensure that the results of the Court's work are known and understood and to account to the citizens of the Union for the Court's work.' Furthermore, the communication policy is intended to raise awareness of the Court and to ensure that audit reports are presented in a clear and comprehensible way. Interestingly, the policy cites the Court's website as the most important source of information on the Court. In the light of the ever-growing number of people having access to the Internet, this approach certainly ensures easy access to information on the Court and its work, and it also helps raise awareness of the Court.

Another  interesting  example  is  the  communication  policy  of  the Danish Medicines Agency (2005). Here, communication is described as a strategic activity included in all signifi  cant decisions at the Danish Medicines Agency, and the communication policy as a set of guidelines for the internal and external communication with the aim of supporting the Agency's objectives. Communication is thus given a high priority, and the wording strategic activity indicates that communication is partly seen from a business economics perspective as described above. The keywords of the policy, which apply to internal as well as external communication, are cited as active, open, trustworthy, responsible and service oriented .

The two examples just referred to are taken from an international body and a Danish governmental agency, respectively, and the similarities are obvious. The communication policy from a private organisation, the British Centre for Deaf Studies (2005), addresses some of the same issues in stating that access to information and to decision-making processes in the Centre must be open and apparent to all. However, this communication policy also refl  ects the specifi  c needs and aspects relevant to such an organisation in emphasising the importance of sign language and the translation of meetings from sign language into English. Communication policy thus not only applies to written and spoken language, but also to non-verbal forms of communication such as sign language.

Unlike language policy, which solely concerns outgoing communication, communication policy may also address the issue of incoming communication. An example of this is found in the Director Communication Policy of the American bio-research company, Applera (2005), in which it is expressly stated that stockholders and other interested parties may communicate directly with the Board or the non-management directors and that all such communication should be in writing and directed to the corporation's secretary. As was the case in the examples above, this signals openness and a willingness to communicate with the stakeholders.

With the ever-increasing use of and access to the Internet, it is hardly surprising to fi  nd communication policies specifi  cally directed at electronic communications. One such policy has been issued by the Balliol College of Oxford (2005) and cautions employees about the lack of privacy when using email and the risks involved in software downloads. Furthermore, the policy specifi  es a number of restrictions on the use of the Internet, e.g. violating copyright laws or attempting to hack into other computers or networks.

As it appears from the above examples, communication policies are issued by various institutions, organisations and companies, and it is not surprising that such policies are adapted to suit the needs of the individual institution, organisation or company. A recurrent feature, however, seems to be the emphasis on values, openness, transparency and comprehensibility. The only exception is the Electronic Communication Policy in which the emphasis is on cautions and restrictions. Furthermore, the examples show that communication policies may apply to written as well as non-written, and even non-verbal, communication and  to  traditional  written  communication  as  well  as  electronic  communication. It is also interesting to note that, unlike language policies, communication policies  may  apply  to  incoming  as  well  as  outgoing communication.

A number of terms are used as synonyms or near-synonyms to communication policy, e.g.

## Communication policy

- = communication guidelines and standards
- = information policy
- = communication strategy
- = action plan for communication
- = openness policy

The following defi  nitions, however, are based on the above considerations and the study of existing communication policies and will not take these terms into account:

## 1. General communication policy

A general communication policy involves the deliberate control of an organisation's internal and external communication in order to ensure the optimal functionality of the organisation, including product development and sales. Usually, the communication policy takes into account the values and visions of the organisation. A general communication policy is language-independent and is mainly issued by companies, organisations and sub-national authorities.

A general communication policy applies to ministries, departments and other sub-national authorities. The same is true for large, international organisations such as the UN, the EU and NATO. In some cases, however, it may also apply to an entire state as it is seen in certain African countries, e.g. Senegal and Tanzania (Bathily 2005 and Tanzania 1997).

International  organisations  and  large  companies  often  include  a general  description  of  their  basic  values  in  their  language  policies.

## 106

Normally, however, the term communication policy is not applied to this part of what is referred to as the company's or organisation's language policy.

## 2. Specifi  c communication policy

A specifi  c communication policy involves general or thematic requirements or prohibitions concerning particular forms or channels of communication or prohibition of acquiring particular information or documents. This includes requirements concerning general or limited access to or use of specifi  c types of information.

Parts of a specifi  c communication policy not only apply to employees of the organisation or authority involved, but also, or solely, to inquiries made by customers or citizens. Thus, communication policy differs  from  language  policy,  which  is  always  directed  at  the  internal  or  external  communication of employees, members or students. Whereas a general communication policy only rarely applies to states, several examples of specifi  c communication policies at the state level can be found, particularly in dictatorships. Such communication policies include the prohibition of fl  yers, phone calls to foreign countries or the use of the Internet.

Examples of this type of communication policy can also be found in existing language policies.

3. Interlingual communication policy , which should be referred to as interlingual language policy.

4. Intralingual communication policy , which should be referred to as intralingual language policy.

## 4. Revised defi  nition of language policy

On the basis of this defi  nition of the term communication policy, we arrive at a new and revised defi  nition of the term language policy; a defi  nition which is free of the fl  aws and inadequacies inherent in the afore-mentioned defi  nition. In this connection, a number of synonyms will be listed in accordance with the terminology used by various theorists and practicians. It should be noted, however, that many language policies contain elements that we have classifi  ed as being part of communication policy. In such language policies, these elements are a genuine part of the language policy, and they may take one of two forms:

The basic values of a language policy , which should be referred to as general communication policy.

The selection of communication types, communication channels and the use of non-verbal communication , which should be referred to as specifi  c communication policy.

Nevertheless,  we  argue  that  whereas  the  terms language  policy and communication policy may both concern the promotion of different verbal and non-verbal languages, they differ in the sense that communication policy may also include guidelines on the selection and use of nonverbal languages. Language policy, on the other hand, solely concerns the selection and use of verbal communication forms in different contexts and may therefore be defi  ned as follows:

## Language policy

Language policy is the deliberate control of matters pertaining to language. Language policy concerns the relations between languages, interlingual relations, on the one hand, and issues specifi  c to one language, intralingual matters, on the other. A language policy may form part of a communication policy, but the existence of a communication policy is not a prerequisite for the existence of a language policy.

## 1. Interlingual language policy

An interlingual language policy is the clear and deliberate choice, recommendation or promotion of one or more language(s).

## 1.1 General interlingual language policy

A general  interlingual  language  policy  involves  language  selection, i.e. the selection of some languages on the expense of others.

- = status planning
- = general language policy
- = language selection

## 1.2 Specifi  c interlingual language policy

A specifi  c interlingual language policy is a protectionist language policy that prescribes the promotion of one or more language(s), either by means of language acts or through fi  nancial and political support for selected organisations promoting a particular language or culture. Language acts concern not only lingual, but also non-lingual languages, and they primarily apply within the country in question. The purpose of the support for organisations promoting a particular language or culture is to promote or increase the knowledge and use of the language in question, primarily in foreign countries.

- = status planning
- = language promotion

## 1.3 Special form of specifi  c interlingual language policy

A special form of specifi  c interlingual language policy is a hegemonic language policy, i.e. opposition to one or more language(s) in favour of one or more other language(s).

- = linguistic hegemony

## 2. Intralingual language policy

An intralingual language policy is the choice or recommendation of, warning  against  or  ban  on  certain  linguistic  constructions,  collocations, phrases or words in a particular language.

## 2.1 General intralingual language policy

A general intralingual language policy involves stylistic selection, i.e. a clear and deliberate choice or recommendation of specifi  c stylistic aspects or rules pertaining to a particular language.

- = communication-optimising language policy
- = style selecting language policy
- = language guide

## 2.2 Specifi  c intralingual language policy

A specifi  c intralingual language policy involves the selection of linguistic units, i.e. a clear and deliberate choice or recommendation of specifi  c grammatical constructions, words or word forms in a particular language.

- = corpus planning
- = linguistic units selecting language policy

## 2.3 Special form of specifi  c intralingual language policy

A special form of specifi  c intralingual language policy is a puristic language policy based on a particular historical, moral or political perception of proper language resulting in the prohibition of or opposition to certain grammatical constructions, words or word forms in a particular language.

- = purism
- = puristic language policy
- = ideological language policy

## 5. Different or alike?

Many companies and organisations have a communication policy as well as a language policy. This is not surprising as language and effi  cient  communication  are  important  competitive  parameters  that  may serve to differentiate the company or organisation from its competitors. Common to all language and communication policies is that they serve a specifi  c purpose, e.g. to establish a brand, create a positive corporate image, achieve effi  ciency or realise the visions or ethical policies of the company or organisation. Both types of policy should take into account the linguistic and cultural factors that apply to the company or organisation in question, and in companies with a communication policy as well as a language policy, it is important that the two policies supplement each other. Therefore, the fact that a relation between the two types of policy is hardly ever established internally in the company or organisation is somewhat paradoxical, and usually also rather inconvenient. Of course, such a relation may have been discussed or agreed upon in some of these companies or organisations, but the actual policies show no traces thereof. This situation refl  ects the contents of the theoretical contributions on the two types of policy. In the previous chapters, we aimed to clarify the defi  nition of both terms as well as the relation between them. Our suggestions imply that the term communication policy may, but should not, be used for policies falling within the defi  nitions of interlingual and intralingual language policy. In practice, this would be an attempt to abolish the term language policy altogether and expand the scope of communication policy to include what was described as a hegemonic language policy. With the exception of the hegemonic language policy, all other types of language policy will depend on the existence of a communication policy, and this communication policy will provide the guidelines for certain decisions relating to language policy. An example of this can be found in the communication policy of a Danish ministry, which states that employees are not allowed to refer to their personal opinions, but solely to acts, other statutory instruments and government decisions. This implies that a general intralingual language policy for this ministry, a language policy concerning stylistic selection, cannot recommend the use of a personal style. On the contrary, such a language policy will have to recommend an impersonal style to a certain degree, i.e. to avoid the use of personal pronouns such as I and we and encourage the use of the passive form rather than the active, which is preferred in most company-specifi  c language policies.

Thus, it is obvious that the relation between communication policies and intralingual language policies is a particularly close one. The next question one must ask is therefore: how do intralingual selection processes infl  uence the distinction between communication policy and language policy? In order to answer this question, we must clarify whether, and to which extent, language and communication relate to the same functions. To do this, we will use the basic terms in lexicography (cf. Tarp  1992,  Bergenholtz/Tarp  2003,  2005b). This  theory  assumes  the following lexicographic functions, i.e. the functions to be performed by a dictionary in order to meet the needs of the intended users:

Communicative functions: text production, reception, translation

Cognitive  functions:  systematic  search  for  knowledge,  sporadic search for knowledge,

Communicative functions aim to assist the user in solving problems arising in connection with the reading, production or translation of a text. Cognitive functions aim to assist the user in gaining particular or systematic knowledge of something, whether in a linguistic or a nonlinguistic context. The aim of communicative functions is entirely different. By reading, hearing, proof-reading, writing or translating a text we might have problems in understanding, proof-reading, producing or translating a particular part of the text. This is not to say that communicative functions cannot imply an added cognitive bonus - it is possible. However, the topic of this contribution is not lexicography, but language policy and communication policy. The arguments just described may be used to avoid some of the misunderstandings that may explain why no attempts have been made to relate language policy and communication policy:

- Communicative functions comprise language and communication.
- Cognitive functions comprise language, but not communication.
- Cognitive functions comprise language as well as all fi  elds  of knowledge in an organisation.
- Cognitive  functions  comprise  communication  only  indirectly, not directly.

If these statements are applied to the topic of this contribution, the relations between communication, language and an organisation or the products of a company in the widest sense of the word may be illustrated as follows:

communication production, sales, price policy...

language

<!-- image -->

As the illustration shows, a certain overlap between language and communication exists; yet the two are not identical. To understand this separation, it is necessary to make a distinction into verbal and non-verbal communication. Non-verbal communication cannot be classifi  ed as language, but it may interact closely with verbal actions. Texts, on the other hand, are a part of communication only, whereas linguistic knowledge has nothing to do with communication.

When communicating, people express themselves either verbally or non-verbally. A central difference between language policy and communication policy is thus the fact that, unlike communication policy, language policy always and solely concerns the selection and use of verbal communication forms. In some national language policies, the promotion  of  non-verbal  communication  forms  is  also  included,  but these language policies do not offer any guidelines concerning the actual selection and use of such non-verbal communication forms. More generally, communication policy may be defi  ned as a policy which involves a number of these actants:

- choice of communication values (vision, ethics, …)
- choice of communication types (lingual, non-lingual (e.g. sign language))
- choice of communication channels (TV, radio, trade fairs, newspapers, email, letters, websites, blogs, text messages, …)
- choice of communication places (meetings, assemblies, trade fairs, …)
- choice of level that the communication policy should apply to (international, national, regional, …)

- choice of communication rules for the various participants (board of directors, customers, managers, …)
- degree of control of the communication policy (prescriptive, proscriptive, no regulation (which may consist of a description of the status quo, i.e. descriptive))

Language policy may be characterised as a policy that presupposes or should presuppose some or all of the above-mentioned elements. An interlingual language policy should involve a number of the following actants, as a minimum 'choice of language':

- choice  of  one  or  more  language(s)  for  communication  channels (TV, radio, trade fairs, newspapers, email, letters, websites, blogs, text messages, …)
- choice of one or more language(s) for communication places (meetings, assemblies, trade fairs, …)
- choice of level that the interlingual language policy should apply to (international, national, …)
- choice  of  one  or  more  language(s)  for  communication  products (text types, actual texts, text parts)
- degree of control of the interlingual language policy (prescriptive, proscriptive, no regulation (which may consist of a description of the status quo, i.e. descriptive))

An intralingual language policy presupposes the existence of an overall communication policy, and the following three actants are inevitably involved:

- choice of level that the intralingual language policy should apply to (international, national, …)
- suggestions or rules concerning the linguistic presentation of communication products (text types, actual texts, text parts)
- degree of control of the interlingual language policy (prescriptive, proscriptive, no regulation (which may consist of a description of the status quo, i.e. descriptive))

The above description of the relation between communication policy and language policy emphasises the fact that a language policy should presuppose the  existence  of  a  communication  policy. This  statement needs further elaboration on two accounts, however: fi  rstly, the statement primarily applies to intralingual language policies. Secondly, the reverse is also true, i.e. that a communication policy should always be supplemented by a language policy - in some cases, an intralingual language policy only. This is not only true for actual communication policies, but also for theoretical considerations. Furthermore, it means that contributions on communication policy based on business economics or communication sciences should take into account theoretical advances in the fi  eld of language policy - intralingual theories in particular, but also interlingual theories to a certain extent.

## 6. Literature

- Applera 2005: Director Communication Policy http://www.applera.com/applera/ applerahome.nsf/cc6ab90fd2809be185256d95006d60f3/AAB3C4CEEFB7C3EA88256EF9004FC500. November 2005.
- Balliol College of Oxford 2005: Electronic Communication Policy. http://www.balliol. ox.ac.uk/offi  cial/handbooks/communication/index.asp November 2005.
- Bathily, Alymana 2005: Strategic Thinking. Community Radio in Senegal Today. Issues And  Outlooks. http://www.comminit.com/africa/strategicthinking/st2005/thinking1053.html. November 2005.
- Bergenholtz, Henning 2003: Bryder Dansk Sprognævn den danske sproglov? Sprogpolitik i teori og praksis. In Från Närpesdialekt till EU-svenska. Festskrift till Kristina Nikula , udg. af Harry Lönnroth. Tammerfors: Tampere University Press, 17-31.
- Bergenholtz, Henning 2004: Sprachpolitik: Also: Deutsch sprechen Deutsche in deutschen Landen. Aber warum schreibt man manchmal Deutsch und manchmal deutsch? In EliS\_e, Jahrgang 4, Heft 1, Juli 2004 - gewidmet K.-D.Bünting zum 65sten Geburtstag. Essen,  43-54.  http://www.elise.uni-essen.de/elise/elise\_04\_01/el\_04\_ 01. November 2005.
- Bergenholtz, Henning/Jonna Bisgaard/Majken Brunsborg/Kamilla Kvist Kwichmann 2003: Sprogpolitik: So ein Ding müssen wir auch haben. In Hermes 31, 135-165.
- Bergenholtz, Henning/Sven Tarp 2003: Two opposing theories: On H.E. Wiegand's recent discovery of lexicographic functions. In Hermes 31 , 171-196.
- Bergenholtz, Henning 2006: Toward a Defi  nition of Communication Policy, Language Policy  and  Language  Planning.  In spil.  stellenbosch  papers  in  linguistics 37 (i trykken)
- Bergenholtz, Henning/Sven Tarp 2005a: Política lingüística: Conceptos y defi  niciones. In 5TH Symposium on Translation, Terminology and Interpretation in Cuba and Canada. Ed.  by Canadian  Translators,  Terminologists  and  Interpreters  Council. http://www.cttic.org./e\_publications.htm. November 2005.
- Bergenholtz,  Henning/Sven  Tarp  2005b:  Wörterbuchfunktionen.  In Schreiben,  Verstehen,  Übersetzen  und  Lernen:  Zu  ein-  und  zweisprachigen  Wörterbüchern  mit Deutsch , hrsg. von Irmhild Barz/Henning Bergenholtz/Jarmo Korhonen. Frankfurt a.M./Bern/New York/Paris: Peter Lang, 11-25.
- Centre  for  Deaf  Studies  2005: CDS Communication  Policy. (http://www.bris.ac.uk/ deaf/enquiries/cds\_policies/comm\_policy. November 2005.

- Danish  Medicines Agency  2005: Communication  at  the  Danish  Medicines  Agency. (http://www.dkma.dk/1024/visUKLSArtikel.asp?artikelID=5855. November 2005.
- European Court of Auditors 2002: The Court's Communication Policies and Standards. http://www.eca.eu.int/eca/communication/eca\_communication\_index\_en.htm November 2005.
- FAO 1999 = Eighty-fi  rst Session of the Programme Committee/Ninety-second Session of the Finance Committee Rome, 3-7 May 1999: Review of FAO Language Policy. http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/x1516e.htm. November 2005.
- Jørgensen, Jacob/Stine Windfeld 2003: Kommunikationspolitikker: fra hyldesucces til styringsdokument. København: Samfundslitteratur.
- Kotler, Philip/Kevin Lane Keller: Marketing management. 12. edition. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall. 2005/2006.
- Kulturministeriet 2003: Sprog på spil - et udspil til en dansk sprogpolitik. København: Kul  turministeriet.
- Ministeriet for Videnskab, Teknologi og Udvikling (1997): Information til tiden. Betænk  ning  fra  Udvalget  om  Offentlig  Informationspolitik.  Betænkning  nr.  1342. http://www.statensnet.dk/pligtarkiv/fremvis.pl?vaerkid=863&reprid=1&iarkiv=1. November 2005.
- Møller Nielsen, Søren 2003: Ministeriernes kommunikation. Analyser af danske ministeriers  kommunikationspolitikker  2000-2001. Speciale.  København:  Københavns  Universitet. http://www.kommunikationsforum.dk/Log/Pol.kom.pdf November 2005.
- Rosenmeier, Lene 2005: Få budskabet ud. Om formidling af juridiske tekster. København: Nyt Juridisk Forlag.
- Rosholm, Gitte 2002: Gid kommunikationspolitik var LOV! Anmeldelse af Helle Petersen: Strategisk kommunikation - kvalitetsstyring og måling. In Kommunikationsforum. http://www.kommunikationsforum.dk/?articleid=5429 November 2005.
- Tanzania 1997 = National Information and Communication Infrastructure (NICI) Policies and Plans (e-strategies) . http://www.uneca.org/aisi/nici/Tanzania/tanzania.htm. November 2005.
- Tarp, Sven 1992: Prolegomena til teknisk ordbog. Ph. d.  dissertation. Aarhus: Spanish  Institute. Aar  hus  School  of  Business.  http://www.lng.hha.dk/dml/spa/phd.pdf. November 2005.
- Utbildnings- och kulturdepartementet 2005 = Bästa språket - en samlad svensk språkpolitik. http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/5359/a/50761;jsessionid=aEgXq6qmC4eh. November 2005.
- Wikipedia  (2005a): Language  Policy. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language\_policy.  November 2005
- Wikipedia (2005b): Kommunikationspolitik . http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kommunikationspolitik. November 2005.