Haugens Model

Haugen (1983: 269-89) proposed a model of language planning showing categories which can be used in analysing LPP in a given polity. This model was used to explain LPP in Norway, however, the categories are general enough to help in rationalising linguistic condition in a polity like Afghanistan. The table given here presents essence of this policy: Form (policy planning) Function cultivation) Society (status planning) 1. Selection (of norm) 3. Implementation (language

(decision procedures)

(educational spread)

a. Identification (of norm) a. correction procedure standardization procedures) b. allocation of norms Language (Corpus planning) b. evaluation Elaboration (functional

2. codification (of norm) 4. standardization procedures) a. graphization

development) a. modernization terminological

b. grammaticalisation c. lexicalization (Adopted from Haugen, 1983: 269-89)

b. stylistic development

Language planning is presented in this model in four connected steps. First step starts with selection of a norm, involving formalising decision making. Second step involves standardization procedure through graphization, grammaticalisation and lexicalization. These two steps belong to status and corpus planning respectively. Third step is proposed as materializing of the first step in status planning in the sphere of society as status planning,
1

and fourth step is proposed as materializing of second step in the sphere of language as corpus planning. Third step in language planning materialises the status of a language through the spread of the language through education through a series of corrections and evaluations. Fourth step of language planning materialises the standardisation procedure through terminological modernisation and development of stylistic standards. This model is essentially a top-down approach to implementation. It shows mutuality of the structural aspect and social aspect of language. Both depending on socio-political acceptance and legitimacy. Perception of language speakers appear as important factor in the success or failure of LPP. This model recognises identification of a language norm for promotion by authority. A decision making process involves which is essentially political involving the standard policy making procedures. Standardization starts after policy decision. Standardization changes the language norm to suit the proposed status and function. Education becomes an all important and vital arena for cultivation of a standardized language norm. Evaluation and correction of policy guidelines continue fine-tuning the policy continually, achieving the policy objectives as closely as possible. Elaboration of the language norm continues through the development of terminologies and inclusion of appropriate styles for formal and informal social and political situations. Haugen finds role of authority central in this process of language planning. In political and social discourse, this authority possesses enough legitimacy to propose changes that would be accepted by individual and groups. Spolsky (1998, 66-67) confirms the essential details of Haugen in his model. Considering policy starting with decision regarding status of a language continues to go into the area of corpus planning. Language policy is seen closely related to politics. Agents of language policy can be appointed by legal authority or they may be self appointed custodians of language. The top-down orientation of policy, as imposition of the vision of authority
2

through legal framework. This activity determines the domains where the language is to be used. It also allot function to language(s) and in some way determine the role of actors (Spolsky, 1998: 69).

Language Ecology Model Bernard Spolsky suggested a model which can be used to study and make prediction about Language management in the contemporary world. He used the biological metaphor of biodiversity found in an eco system to illustrate his model. He presented language policy as making choice by an individual or a group basing it on their judgemental belief. He proposed a general model that was flexible enough to be applied to many contexts. In the work of Spolsky, this model primarily intends to provide a framework that could be utilized to study of a given polity in ecological perspective. Inspired by the concept of the intricate relation between an organism and its environment, Spolsky (2005:2152-62) proposes similar relation exist between a language, its speaker and their context. Intervention in language is called in such context as language management, that is always directed to preserve languages as a naturalist preserve rare species in the eco system. Any, change can potentially jeopardize the whole eco system of languages. According to Spolsky (2004: 39-41) four aspects of language play significant role in
3

the design of LPP. First aspect is the presence of language practices, ideology and management. In the interpretation of policy, different viewpoints can result in almost contradictory descriptions of language policy in a state. Second aspect of LPP is its inclusiveness. LPP in polity cannot be limited to a single language variety. Third aspect states LPP to be operative in every language community of whatever size and nature. Domains of LPP can be any definable unit within the community. Language policy in each community is linked with power and politics, because LPP spans the whole state that is the locus of power, therefore, use of power in LPP is obvious. Fourth and last feature of LPP is the existence of language eco system, where in the metaphor of biology diversity and mutuality in cooperation is vital for the prosperity of the system. Ecological relation of language to its context, exist in a wide range of linguistic and non-linguistic elements, variables and factors. Intricacy of such relation reside in the state of indeterminacy regarding causality (Spolsky, 2004: 41). Outline of the model introduces some principal categories that could be employed in mapping LPP of a polity. The first category is components. This category is used first to define the participants and second the language varieties. Then the participants engaged in the process of making a choice. The category of components here correspond closely with the category of actors in the design that was used in organising the viewpoints of different scholars on LPP. However, in this model along participants of LPP, the study of language varieties employed in decision making are also discussed. Contexts correspond closely with domain of LPP. Home, neighbourhood, church [or place of worship], public language landscape, media, school, local government, national government and international bodies are the important contexts where LPP choices have significant value. In terms of causation and co-occurrence, four scenarios decide the nature of decisions (roles) that take place. First was the sociolinguistic context; second, ethnic and national identity inside the concerned
4

community; third, globalization; and the fourth scenario was the acceptance of human and civil rights of minority languages. This model provided some tools for making predictions about the ongoing policies. The feature of prediction in this model makes it a useful tool for prognostic purposes in the study of LPP (Spolsky, 2004: 217-23).

Hybrid Model This model was constructed from the model earlier presented in this chapter, in addition to the relevant scholarship on LPP, politics, public policy and social theories. This model has a theoretical portion and graphical portion. Theoretical portion provided a general context in which the graphical portion supposedly operates. The nodes, and processes of the graphical portion are explained as a meta-theory that was then modified accordingly when realities of the field demanded. This model, became foundation of the proposed Integrative Model of LPP in Afghanistan. Based on the discussion on the starting hypothesis of this work as proposed in the synopsis, and then further analysis of the conceptual framework offered in the works of various experts of LPP, theoretical positions were adopted initially which were then incorporated with modifications on the bases of evidences from analysis of data from the sources in the field. Hypothesis A: Nation is a system Hypothesis B: National Integration is the process of eliminating threats to the stability of nation as system. Hypothesis C: LPP is one of the integrative tools in nation as system.

Hypothesis D: identity is layered in individual. Individual possess the potential to effectively recognize and prioritize multiple identities according to the appeal of these identities to the real or imagined interests of the individual. Hypothesis E: in case of conflict identities with stronger appeal to the interests of individual are upheld and the opposing identities are suppressed or disowned. Hypothesis F: homogeneity and diversity are integrative LPP goals within nation as system (derived from Hypothesis B). Hypothesis G: target population as component of nation, can lose stability due to grievances and/or competition. They can respond to integrative LPP through acceptance, resistance and rejection. Hypotheses stated above were concerned with integration of groups within a state or polity. Integration with international community involves modification in these theories. Following are the hypotheses about international integration. Hypothesis I: international community can behave as a system, which requires stability. Integration is one way of bringing stability to the system. Hypothesis J: LPP can act as integrative tool, which offer assimilation and accommodation as means of achieving international integration. Hypothesis K: homogeneity and diversity become base for adopting assimilation or accommodation. Assimilation and accommodation can be viewed as two common modes of integration. Assimilation depends on repressive mechanism which result in language shifts, language deaths, endangered languages, violation of language rights and sociopolitical
6

exploitation. Assimilation is presently an unpopular method of integration for some LPP experts while few apologist theories defends its use. Accommodation is the integrative approach arising from cooperation, democratic practices, recognition of rights, pluralism and freedom. This alternative approach is popular among the majority of LPP experts and organizations like EU and UNO. Processes of assimilation and accommodation are assumed to operate in different direction. Assimilation as focus on inhibition of some languages and promotion of a single language or few languages associated with power and prestige begin with placing obstacles in the use of minority languages. Speakers of minority languages face disadvantages which in sociopolitical sense create grievances. Responses to marginalization consolidate into sociopolitical practices by minorities. These practices might be in the direction of intended assimilation and weakening or discontinuation of the disadvantaged languages. However, the assimilation trend might reverse even when the minority group have their first language weakened significantly as in Ireland and Israel happened where their language of historical identities were recognized by their speakers to be revived. Marginalization can invoke resistance in the speakers of minority languages. This resistance to linguistic assimilation becomes cause of conflicts which might be in rare cases a separatist activism, and commonly consciousness of otherness in the popular discourse of the speakers of minority languages. Diversity , language ecology, language rights, democratic values and respect for freedom of individuals and groups they identify with result in the accommodation process in LPP. Accommodation promotes cooperation which enhances the stability of nation as grievances are resolved and threats to stability eliminates.

(Fig.1. Hybrid Model adapted from Spolsky, Haugen and others) Fig. 1. Shows, the schematic components, of the Hybrid Mode which schematically shows LPP resulting in integration or disintegration. This model of LPP was formed to focus on the mechanism of integration and disintegration in LPP. The model has two levels, upper and lower. LPP initiated in upper level, is implemented in top-down and LPP initiated in lower level emerges as bottom-up. This model theorize a resourceful actor (RA) as the first interested actor of LPP who as individual or group initiates LPP for integrating a target group, where grievances , or the urge of efficiency and national unity might become motive for change in LPP. An accommodative intervention in language results in integration and an unsuccessful or partially successful coercive and repressive assimilation results in resistance, conflict and disintegration. Actors in LPP can be divided in to resourceful actors and less resourceful actors. Like the elite and proto-elite of the power based model they can compete with each other for domination of power domains. In addition to their ability to compete for
8

domination they can cooperate when an accommodative policy is followed. This model, therefore, links vision of national integration with LPP and also shows how LPP contribute to national integration. Domains of LPP are not schematically represented but the upper and lower level division is intended to divide social, political, economic, technological and cultural domains into two categories. Those controlled by the resourceful actors have higher status, prestige, impact and power, whereas, those in the lower domains contain lesser status, power, prestige and impact. However, in the process of resistance to the assimilative LPP shift in the identity may take place and domains of lower level might become center of loyalty and identity formation, which increase in such case the status of these domains in the eyes of dominated groups. As the existing scholarship supports, education, government are central in the contest for control between competing groups. Besides, these other domains of cultural, social, economic, political and technological origin are also assumed to be significant in the process of integration. Relation of domains with actors and other domains is taken in the ecological sense as complex and intricate process, in which every factors can lead to profound changes in LPP and its resulting process of integration. Two categories of practices and roles are given primary focus in this model; one is assuming diversity as a resource and other is to assume diversity as a dangerous problem. Language purism, also becomes the cause of assimilative efforts of the resourceful actors. It is the process of controlling language to drive out the marked words because of their association and meaning with unwanted social, political and cultural events and objects. This is done with the spirit of nationalism and forming identity. (Spolsky: 2004a: 22-24). Efforts of language purism usually couple with myth of the superiority of indigenous culture and language. This is beneficial for the formation of national identity but its extreme form is dangerous. The convergence of language purism into ethnic cleansing is likely to happen. (Spolsky, 2004: 38).
9

10