26 Language Planning Goal: A Classification Moshe Nahir

26

Language planning Goal:

A Classification
Moshe Nahir
1. Introduction
Language planning may be defined as deliberate, institutionally
organized attempts at affecting the linguistic or sociolinguistic status of
language. Much of the theoretical work in the field has been devoted to
developing various typologies and dichotomies. This study proposes a
classification of language planning functions, or goal, that the
respective agencies-academies, committers, commissions, and so
forth-have been engaged in or seeking since language planning began
several centuries ago. the classification includes goals that such
agencies can adopt if and when activities are recognized as indicators
of language-related needs that these agencies can then meet. An
attempt is also made to show how these LP goal related to LP
processes as described. In Haugens model(1966a,1966c,1983).
Language planning agencies have been engaged in (Nahir
1977).The distinction between language planning processes and
language planning functions, or goals, may be illustrated by an
example cited by. Haugen. Following brief discussion of language as a

source or reflector of discrimination against planning. women have
identified a language problem: the very language itself conflicts with
their desired role in society, and they wish to make a new Selection
and, and codification, which some of them are trying to implement and
elaborate(Haugen 1983;283). Now the identification of the
problem, on the one hand, and the respective steps of selection and
codification that follow the identification are not identical. Haugens
and others models and typologies (e.g., Corpus planning vs. Status
planning, Kloss 1969; policy Approach vs. Cultivation Approach,
Neustupny 1970; and language choice and policy Formulation,
Codification, Elaboration, implementation, and Evaluation, Eastman
1983) begin to deal with the issue or the problem only after the issue
or the problem has been identified and established and the relevant
goals have been set.
The classification mentioned above (Nahir 1977) suggests, then
that language planning as practiced by the agencies involvedacademics, commissions, committees, and so on-has consisted of one
or five functions or goals as major or minor. This classification,
however, tends to be diachronic, identifying and focusing on goals
adopted and sought by past or present agencies, such as the French
Academy, the Hebrew language Academy, the Irish Language
Commission, the Norwegian Language Council, and the Quebec French
Language Bureau.
These activities and indicators can then be categorized into one

of a total of eleven language planning functions or goals. While some
of the new goals may have been recently adopted by LP agencies,
others have yet to be recognized and adopted. Furthermore, some of
the activities discussed here in current definitions of the field. What
they have been or may be seeking, that is, to cover the totality of the
functions that they have engaged in or goals they have sought to date
or that they adopt under current sociolinguistic conditions.
Finally, some general observations on the proposed classification
ought to be noted.
1. A clear distinction must be made between Language planning
Activities involved in carrying out sprecific functions or in
seeking specific goal, and the language planning goals
themselves; identical activities may lead to different goals
and vice versa.for example, when the Canadian public service
commission provides French spread. perhaps the LP goal/LP
activity distinction may be further clarified by noting that a
goal represent an LP agencys intention, declared or
otherwise, while an activity represent, in relation to the goal,
the implementation aspect of the agency- what is actually
being done, by whom, how, and so forth.
2. As indicated earlier, LP, goals as presented in this
classification are not mutually exclusive. LP agencies may
pursue one more goals simultaneously. Further, where several
goals are pursued some may be viewed as major goals and
other as minor goals (cf .Nahir 1977). For example,

Quebecs LP agencies have pursued language maintenance as
aa major goal in recent decades At the same time,
however, they have.
3. LP goals pursued by one or more agencies in a given speech
community may be contradictory. The Hebrew language
Academys major goal in recent decades has been lexical
modernization. Some of the academys achievements,
however, have been contradictory to, or event canceled by,
activities related to its minor goals, External purification.
4. LP goal are not static, As soon as they have been achieved, LP
agencies adopt new goals or even disband. When. When the
revival of Hebrew was completed at the turn of this century,
for example, the Hebrew language committee( later Academy)
replaced language Revival as a major goals whit both
language spread and language standardization (see also Nahir
1978a).
5. Some overlap may at times appear to exist between certain
goals as presented. This may result, as indicated, from the
occasional similarity between a goals and a particular activity.
An example is the goal of stylistic simplification, certain
manifestations of which may be seen as overlapping with
terminological unification.
6.

26 Language Planning Goal: A Classification Moshe Nahir

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

26 Language Planning Goal: A Classification Moshe Nahir

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

26 Language Planning Goal: A Classification Moshe Nahir

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

26

Language planning Goal:

example cited by. Haugen. Following brief discussion of language as a

These activities and indicators can then be categorized into one

other as minor goals (cf .Nahir 1977). For example,

You might also like