Language Planning and Policy

“Language thus has both a ‘constituted and constitutive role in the world; it is not merely a passive presence, nor just a language acted upon by its material circumstances, but also an active agent” (McKay 91).

I think the above quote is a good summary of this weeks readings and reinforces much of what we have learned in class. Language is at the center of most activities people do. We communicate, learn, think, and buy coffee with language. It cannot help but be a necessary and enlightening part life as well as a coercive. Recognizing the different roles various languages play in different context will help understand how language is used as both.

Learning about Language Politicking was interesting for me because I disagree with it yet understand why it is done. It seems intuitive for leaders of a country whose primary language isn’t a “world” language to implement policies that would give their people greater relevancy in global dialogue. Speakers of English or Mandarin have greater economic opportunities (And often greater social prestige) given that English and Mandarin are the two most prevalent languages of global trade today. Singapore’s actions seem to be (and are) coercive, but there are clear reasons for stressing the need to speak English or Mandarin.

However, from a purely practical standpoint, the negative repercussions language politicking seems to have on education and economy seems to outweigh any potential positives. Also, the divide between the rich and the poor is only reinforced by these methods. Those who have the most monetary resources possess the most opportunity learn dominant languages while the poor are speaking an increasingly irrelevant native language. For my interview, I had a conversation with a Ghanian man who explained the politics of language in his country. Essentially, those who spoke English had the opportunity to go to universities and find jobs with significant salary. Ghanians who spoke only the native language of Twi had no job opportunities aside from manuel labor. It seems that speakers of less prevalent native languages struggle with identity because the default discourse is definitely and hegemonically other than their own. When a language such as English is seen as the ticket to affluence, it only follows that people would put more value on speaking English. People who do not speak English in this context would be subject to feel that there language is something less, which is clearly not the case though it is reinforced through simple day to day actions.

If the logic of Language Politicking is followed to it end, uniformity among a nation is appears to be the ultimate goal. It sounds like a pipe dream, but a nation whose people are more alike is generally thought to have more stability than one with radical diversity. (There are several countries that have had high degrees of stability and diversity, but it hasn’t changed the thought that uniformity is a strength) This is actually really sad because it is basically asking several people groups to give up their past and conform to another group’s culture.