Abstract:
Language planning, in one way or another, is as old as human civilization. Every time that one polity invaded the territory of another, the language of the conqueror was imposed on the conquered. The Romans imposed their language across the civilized world as they knew it. In the 21st century, the practice of language planning has become increasingly sophisticated. English, as the result of a series of fortuitous accidents has become the international language serving many activities. At the same time, it has led to an explosion in English language teaching, an activity also not based on wise decisions or wise planning.
Machine summary:
"Since the late 1990s, language policy and planning principles have also been increasingly applied in "micro" situations (for example, in relation to language problems in communities, schools, organizations and companies; see, for instance, Canagarajah, 2005; Chua & Baldauf, 2011).
196) has suggested that research in language policy and planning can be divided into three historical phases: • decolonization, structuralism and pragmatism (1950s, 1960s); • the failure of modernization, critical sociolinguistics (1980s, 1990s); • a new world order, postmodernism, linguistic human rights (21st century).
Calls for expansion and implementation of language rights can be expected to continue, with language planning research heavily involved in the development of a better understanding of the role of language rights in state formation, in international organizations, in political conflict, and in a variety of other social processes.
The failure of early or classical language planning activities to achieve their goals in many contexts and the intimate connection between early language planning and modernization theory meant that language planning was subject to the same criticisms as was modernization theory generally, including at least: • the fact that economic models appropriate for one place may be ineffective in any other places; • the fact that national economic development will not necessarily benefit all sectors of any given society, especially the poor (Steinberg, 2001); • the fact that development generally fails to consider local contexts and the conflicting needs and desires of diverse communities; and • the fact that development has a homogenizing effect on social and cultural diversity (Foster- Carter, 1985; Worsley, 1987)."