SOCIO AND PSYCHOLINGUISTICS, NOTES

Class 1: February 8th

-Distinction between learning and acquisition: L1 is acquired (subconscious process) and L”

is learned (conscious process): in the 80s-90s they were deemed separate
- L2 is misinterpreted -> a LG used in an environment which is different from the native
- a foreign LG: foreign nature, different these days due to mass communication -> the
distinction between FL and L2 is blurred
- Krashen’s monitor theory: acquisition and learning are separate, non interface position,
however, today there is an interface and it has become automatized
- SLA can also stand for FLL, they have become generic terms, and both processes have been
productive
- Schumann’s acculturation model: https://image.slidesharecdn.com/acculturation-model-
1225479055924555-9/95/acculturation-model-1-728.jpg?cb=1225453951

Processing linguistic data

-ancient times: teaching a LG via the grammar translation method, it was a trend till the 60s
- process studying began in the 40s with behaviorism: stimulus-response -> it was considered
a dominant pattern on which the learning is based
- habit formation and using a learnt pattern
- behaviorism came with a LG specific branch of methods -> contrastive analysis, where the
individual/learner is unimportant, everyone will operate the same way according to the
universal mechanism
- accent acquisition -> phonological inventory, though today accents aren’t important in FLL
- contrastive analysis tried to predict behavior and identify learning patterns, it also claimed
similarities will help the learner in acquisition. Everything in the TL can be explained through
comparison
- Chomsky opposed the contrastive analysis with LAD and UG, though he never mentioned
the L2, he claimed we don’t make habits but rules to form original utterances
- emergence of error analysis: how people behave and what errors they make -> contrastive
analysis was not sufficient: anything the individual produces in L2 stems from L1
- no plausible explanation for L1 transfer, however, error analysis studies developmental
patterns related to L1 -> the interlanguage is born creating a continuum with predictable
forms.
- restructuring/recreating continuum -> not stemming from another pattern
- error: competence issue vs mistake: performance issue. Errors reveal a lot but not all
- avoidance strategies (if an individual deems something difficult they will use a simpler
construct): awareness -> performance analysis -> total linguistic performance: it’s not about
individuals but the processes, patterns
- overproduction: more than relevant vs underproduction: lack of production of certain
patterns of LG use
- discourse analysis: contextual variables that contribute to LG production: it is a) a broader
spectrum which can be used in any LG related analysis and b) conversation analysis in texts
- foreigner talk (FT): an ungrammatical variable, not how they but how we speak to non-
natives, the adjustment of a more proficient user towards a less proficient one

Class 2

-Causes of ungrammaticality: perceived low proficiency (structures may not be understood),

social factor/social distance (status), prior FT experience/bad attitude, spontaneity
- FT discourse: shows features of adjustment: interactional patterns (message abandonment),
changing topics -> here and now topics, preference for questions, comprehension checks (are
you with me?), speaking more slowly, shorter utterances, higher pitch, greater number of
questions, language is more predictable, less idiomatic usage, no hidden messages
- a less proficient user deploys particular strategies: paraphrasing, approximation coinage
(non-existing terms in the TL), circumlocution (talking one’s way around the issue), transfer (
L1 impacts the TL), direct translation, LG/code switch, and mime as a last resort
- input: part of the linguistic environment, Krashen’s comprehensible input (I+1, the ideal)
still comprehensible but new to the learner, +1 is not defined
- deviant input/non-standard input: deviating from the norm
- exposure to a class of unproficient learners (ELF normativization)
- the input one is exposed to is most likely to stick
- social baggage -> regional differences and judgments
- frequency/amount of input – lack of which may lead to fossilization

Interlanguage (INTLG)
- started in the 70s, series of publications: William Nemser’s approximative system
- “continuum” happens by a series of hypotheses testing - keep it or drop it, both aren’t
mutually exclusive
- overlapping mental grammars, sets of rules that learners form in regards to the workings of
their languages
- some rules are kept, some aren’t -> they overlap and bits are continuously added
- INTLG is supposed to be a dynamic phenomenon, by learning new rules data/performance
may change
- most important feature: complification -> testing and relying on native LG input -> dual
nature -> restructuring & recreating continuum. Some learners stop halfway and their
knowledge gets fossilized
- 5 reasons for fossilization:
1. Age: CPH, difficult to reach native-like proficiency, the older an individual gets the more
difficult it is for them to acquire a LG, therefore fossilization is more likely
2. Lack of desire to acculturate (Schumann), social distance contributing to SLA ->
acculturation is optimal, but assimilation is not
external factors:
3. Communicative pressure: being in situations where the individual must communicate
beyond their competence, which can be discouraging
4. Lack of input: not enough communication for development
5. Feedback to the learner: positive and negative, believing one is not good enough and
quitting, but also believing one is perfect and not advancing their knowledge
- INTLG has types of variablities:
a) systematic variations in performance, predictable, overgeneralization
b) free variability: ambiguity in usage of utterances, fluctuation of structure usage, hypotheses
testing, unpredictable, yet a clear reason and function can be seen
c) attention: “continuum of speech styles” by not paying attention to the discourse
- common acquisitional orders: there are specific orders for some structures which is a
characteristic feature of INTLG acquisition
- developmental sequences: structural developments and stages of acquisition
- differentiation: possessing enough competence to know how to apply certain structures
(genuine development aspect)
- source LG plays a big part in SLA
- communicative competence: Chomskian idea of LG ability was not comprehensive enough,
setting dependent LG use
- comprehensive communication was born to do justice to the idea of contributing more to
both non-verbal and language communication
- attempts were made to grasp the interpersonal aspect of communication

Class 3

-Dell Hymes: communicative competence vs language competence

- Canale and Swain
- Communicative competence is a larger construct, it has 4 models:
1. Grammatical competence
2. Discourse competence
3. Sociolinguistic competence (sociocultural roles and norms, appropriateness for example)
4. Strategic competence (how to communicate if you don’t have the linguistic means)

-Carson-Freeman’s model of communicative competence has 5 components

a) linguistic form
b) pragmatic/functional competence (functionality of LG use)
c) propositional content
d) interactional patterns (the ability to appropriately use conversational norms)
e) strategic competence (most popular notion, often non-linguistic)

Bachman’s model (communicative competence)

1. Strategic competence, including knowledge structures and assumptions of the world
2. Language competence
3. Psychophysiological mechanisms: speech production, vocal chords, grimacing
4. Creating the context

Bachman’s model of language competence

- 2 key components: organizational and pragmatic competence (handout)

CEFR
- 6 levels of LG proficiency (A1-C2)
- model of communicative competence:
a) general competences: declarative knowledge, skills and know hows, existential
competence, ability to learn
b) communicative LG competence
- declarative knowledge: knowledge of the world
- sociocultural knowledge (values, customs of a particular culture, proximity norms,
conversational distances, culturally embedded phenomena)
- intercultural awareness (understanding the similarities and differences between cultures in
question)
- plurilingualism and pluriculturalism, multilingualism and multiculturalism
- skills and know hows: practical skills, intercultural skills
- existential competence: LG attitudes, motivation, cognitive style preferences
- ability to learn ≠ learning ability: any kind of learning vs aptitude

-communicative LG competences:
- linguistic competences (lexical, phonological, grammatical, orthographic, orthoepic)
- sociolinguistic competence: politeness, appropriate register
- pragmatic competence:
a) discourse c.
b) functional c.
c) design c. (interactional and transactional)

Individual difference variables

Controversial differences
Age
-“young is better, old is faster”
- CPH: important in LG acquisition especially around puberty, in both L1 and L2
- for most of the LG learners achieving native like proficiency is not the goal
- CPH doesn’t really work in SLA
- developing native-like reading skills is easier than developing speaking skills due to the
varying pronunciation
- pre-teens are more likely to be more successful due to their flexibility
- early L2 education makes a lot of sense but only works if particular conditions are met:
amount of exposure, intensity, relevance of materials, continuity

Aptitude
-LG learning ability
- how likely you are to end up as a TL speaker, the level of aptitude dictates it
- aptitude became popular in the 50s-60s with MLAT (Carroll), PLAB (Pimsleur), MENYÉT
Components of MLAT:
1. Phonetic coding ability, en/decoding phonetic information, associating the coding with the
written medium
2. Grammatical sensitivity
3. Rote learning ability (memorizing from word to word)
4. Inductive LG learning ability, being able to identify how a LG works

Components of PLAB
a) verbal intelligence, knowledge of words and the ability to reason analytically
b) motivation: a set of individual difference variables, highly changeable and influences the
learning process
c) auditory ability, phonetic coding, more specifically just decoding

-modern models are computer based ones

- you can be a successful LG learner even if your LG aptitude is low
- high level of aptitude -> learn faster
- low level of aptitude -> learn slower (quitting the course, losing motivation, being the
slowest in the class)

Class 4

Motivation
-the most important
- integrative (setting and task dependant) vs instrumental
- it’s not a static component, it fluctuates
- intrinistic vs extrinistic -> self-determination theory: how much a learner is in control of
what they do: guided but not forced
- intrinistic motivation: internal, the learner finds pleasure in the learning process
- extrinistic: “you gotta do it, or else”, external pressure, different quality, could be a threat or
a promise
- resultative motivation: the results the individual achieves give them motivation, even though
success can mean loss as well
- Machiavellian motivation: “manipulative”, learning a LG in order to manipulate others
- dynamic motivation: how motivation should be seen as a process, it doesn’t concern itself
with the origin, it’s not linear, contains pre-actional, actional and post-actional stages
1. Pre-actional stage: motivation should be generated, explored, identified in the classroom,
while also trying to stimulate those who aren’t motivated
2. Actional: not the teaching but the motivational process, maintenance of motivation, not
letting it diminish, usually a tightrope walk
3. Post-actional: looking back, evaluating and seeing what worked and what didn’t
- the whole process is cyclical and should be pictured as a spiral aspiring for higher results
- self-motivation, self-rewarding
- if teachers promote nothing but still motivate learners half the battle is won

Attitude
-age dependant especially with small children
- first parents then peers shape attitudes
- specific learning situations: materials used, physical environment, how frequently and to
what conditions is the learner exposed, exposure to movies, accidental learning
- ethnicity, minority groups, negative attitudes

Personality
-multiple models with common features, dimension between intro-extroversion, a continuum
with an impact, artificial contrasting of the continuum
- how much is SLA influenced by intro-extraversion?

Anxiety
- dual nature, double duality: facilitating and debilitating + state and trait
- arousal -> being awake, having an ideal level (not too sleepy, not too awake)
- anxiety as a personality trait -> personality dimension
- state nature of anxiety: a condition in which people act anxious
- self-esteem
- empathy – ego permeability: the level of empathy can be changed
- cognitive style: preferred and habitual ways of accessing and using information, both oral
and visual
- cognitive style dimensions: field dependence (big picture, holistic) or independence
(analytic, visual processing of information) -> also a continuum
- impulsivity& reflectivity
- conflict between the learners’ learning style and the teachers’ teaching style
- style stretching: being able to manage other styles
- learning strategies, procedures to make the learning process easier, very likely to enhance
learning if in harmony with style
- learning strategies vs communicating strategies

Class 5

Language transfer
-not only interference, errors could be stemming from other languages
- not an accident but a strategy
- influencing the other languages an individual speaks, resulting from similarities and
differences between other languages
Discourse transfer
- related to politeness, ways of asking, requesting in different cultures, apologies, greetings
- the degree to which we use formality
Semantic transfer
- cognates: house and Hause: look similar and mean the same
- false cognates: words that look similar but mean different things: szimpatikus vs
sympathetic
- positive transfer is not really noticed but it exits, if learners are presented with false cognates
they are not likely to rely on true cognates

Semantics
- linguistic relativism
- vacsora: dinner, supper, tea: how do we express what it is?
- word order: syntactic category: SVO, SOV, with exceptions
- Hungarian has a flexible word order whereas English is more rigid
- if more languages are compared their differences aren’t important but rather their shared
rigidity patterns
- if the TL allows flexibility the learner will still use rigid rules in accordance with their L1
- relative clauses, extending main clauses: branching direction: left branching -> relative
clause comes before the main clause <-> in right branching languages the position of the
relative clause may indicate transfer
- negation patterns: pre-verbal or post-verbal (German vs English word order), universal
tendency for pre-verbal
- phonology: some TL phonemes are used in the L1 after spending time abroad
- suprasegmental (th sound) vs supersegmental dimension (stress hotEl vs hOtel)
- writing systems: not every LG has one:
a) alphabetic: a symbol means 1 phoneme
b) syllabic: a symbol means 1 syllable
c) ideographic: a symbol means 1 morpheme (Chinese morphology)

Non-structural factors
- personality, literacy
- aptitude for phonetic mimicry: likeliness to imitate sounds from other languages
- proficiency: the more proficient an individual is the more likely they are to transfer among
their languages

Theoretical frameworks in SLA

- unidimensional theories state that there is one variable influencing everything
- interactionist theories
- complex dynamic system approach states that everything is interconnected

Nativist theories:
- humans are born with special abilities that no other creatures possess, the LAD. Without
input, nobody can acquire a LG, thus a universal grammar (UG, Chomsky)
- Chomsky’s FLA theory: the first thing and individual acquires is the L1 and later following
similar rules with the help of LAD they can acquire the L2

SLA theory (Krashen)

- acquisition vs learning
- natural order hypothesis
- monitor hypothesis: learners monitor their own learning, self-correction, focus on form and
not function, native speakers also monitor themselves
- input hypothesis: I+1, comprehensible input, slightly above the learners’ level, how do we
know what is +1 and not +3?
- affective filter hypothesis: up or down, when it’s up the linguistic processes stop, and when
it’s down input flows freely. It is a set of emotional variables combined with the levels of
arousal and motivation
- acquisition-learning hypothesis: acquired knowledge can’t be learned and vice versa
- natural order hypothesis: hasn’t been really questioned, not acquisition order studies but
rather accurate order studies
Environmentalist theories
- Schumann’s acculturation model: when people from different cultures meet (pidginisation)
- SLA is primarily influenced by social variables, social distance
- acculturation: becoming a part of the host environment
- preservation: not blending in to the target culture (limited success), results in a pidginized
form of lg, functional for only a limited group
- assimilation: becoming a part of the target culture and community

Acculturation
1. Social dominance/subordination, or no dominance between groups
2. Pattern of integration
3. Enclosure: how much is one a member of an L1 group
4. Cohesiveness: how cohesive the L1 group s
5. Size of the L1 group: act against the development of proficiency
6. Cultural differentiation: if the differences are big the conflict is going to be as well
7. Attitude
8. Intended level of residence: temporary or permanent residence

Class 6

Interactionist theories
Functional typological theory (Givon)
- progression from discourse to syntax driven structures
- pragmatic turning into a syntactic mode (syntactisation)
- takes place in several fields: topic, comment, syntax, subject-predicate sequence
-slow vs rapid delivery of speech, short vs long complex utterances
- no grammatical morphology vs a lot of grammatical morphology
- unified theory of LG change, applicable to most fields

Interlanguage theory
- multidimensional model (ZISA, word order studies)
- 2 essential dimensions 1. Developmental 2. Variational dimension
- 5 stages of development & variation in LG use
Sociolinguistics – regional and social varieties
- the study of how LG is influenced by society, “sociology of LG”, studying LG to understand
society and vice versa
- study of variation in LG: variation can occur on all levels
- regional, social, geographical variation, class, gender, status, temporal, over time
(diachronic), at a certain point in time (synchronic)
- Labov: the observer’s paradox: if you want to observe a phenomenon you must be there,
however the situation is already influenced by you being there, and it can’t be chanes
- least monitored LG use happens in the vernacular sphere
- if the vernacular is to be observed it should be done seamlessly and possibly by triggering
emotional responses which make people change their tone and register
- Labov suggested rapid anonymous interviews
- data processing: sociological tradition: lots of responses, questionnaires vs ethnographic
tradition: single interview, processing data in a qualitative way

Regional & social varieties

- there is no single variety speakers, they all have degrees of formality and a repertoire of
registers
- variation within speaker vs variation within LG
- speech community can be defined in different ways
a) anyone who can at some level for whatever purposes use the LG in a heterogeneous group
b) a network of users who share knowledge and values with other members
- English has a large group of users, those who use a LG on a daily basis are relating to certain
patterns forming a unit of users
- shared varieties will also vary - there can be a repertoire of varieties in a community,
however they will differ on the grounds of regionality and functionality

Regionality
- former dialectology, instead of dialect we use variety, a more neutral term
- stigmatized varieties are often referred to as patois
- Koiné: the shared language of the Mediterranean intellectual elite, it also happens to be the
language in which the old testament was written
- drawing lines between regional varieties is hard because they are not mutually
comprehensive, and so is the distinction between language and dialect
- this difference is not motivated by linguistic processes, but rather by politics
- Bell’s set of criteria to be used when describing a living LG (7)
1. Standardization: a LG should have a standardized variety, a set of norms and codifications
2. Vitality: a LG should have a living community of speakers
3. Historicity: the speakers should look up to the LG as a source of identity
4. Autonomy: whether the speech community identifies the way they speak as autonomous
5. Reduction: whether the speech community feels like they are subordinates to another
variety
6.mixture: relation to the purity of LG, what foreign elements are imported into the LG
7. De-facto norms: non-codified norms, based on convention: what is or isn’t allowed

Class 7

-The vernacular: most informal, intimate, least monitored form

- telling apart regional varieties: geographical features, isolation, local communities develop
local languages
- gradual changes – isogloss, a variety line, connecting them into a bigger line: dialect
boundary ( collection of isoglosses)
- isoglosses just describe the differences between 2 communities
- an accent is not the same as a dialect, which has a set of vocab
- LG contacts can also lead to LG varieties

Social varieties (4 principles)

- used by social groups centered around some variables
1. Social class – hierarchy based interaction/variation
2. Religion
3. Ethnicity (AAVE)
4. Age: changing the ways we speak -> age grading, meaning that the individual’s LG
changes as they grow older
- studied by social dialectology – linguistic markers: features of LG use that separate varieties

Bilingualism
- an individual’s ability to use 2 languages
- multilingualism - more LGS used on a societal level, which is politics related (HR, council
of EU) VS plurilingualism: level of the individual
- bilingualism: use of 2 LGS and 2 similar mechanisms
- bilingual is used in 2 different ways:
a) native-like proficiency, families who come from different LG speaking backgrounds
b) the individual who has some degree of competence in 2 LGS
- very few bilinguals have an equal level of competence -> balanced bilingualism, where the
levels of attainment and context of usage are important
- variables of bilingual abilities:
1. Identification of LGS involved
2. Identifying the ways in which the LGS have been acquired/learned
3. Identifying the age at which the learning took place and the time spent using or being
exposed to the TL
4. Skills: specificity of skills to acquire
5. Internal functions: LG functions, invisible to the outside world (praying, calculating,
thinking, dreaming)
6. External functions: CEFR “can-do statements”, what an individual can do in the TL “I can
write a postcard or read a novel”
7. Domains: 3 distinct components: a) location, physical, b) role relationship, c) topic/s -> a
domain is a combination of all 3 with specific roles

Classification of bilingualism
- historical classification (50s): coordinate vs compound bilinguals
- coordinate bilinguals: acquire the LGS in the same environment, 1 system of meaning, 2 sets
of vocabs
- coordinate: happens in different contexts, 2 systems of meaning which are conceptually
different (supper dinner tea)
- sub-coordinate bilingualism: when clearly one LG is superior and the individual interprets
other LGS in this light (Sapir-Whorf)
- cultural aspect of LG learning: country dependant and conceptualization
- simultaneous vs sequential acquisition
- additive, access to 2 LGS is an asset, adds to the competence VS subtractive, learning the
LG because of the environment: getting the TL but losing the L1
- classifications are not mutually exclusive
- code-switching-> switching from L1 to L2 within sentences, paragraphs or even words,
affixes
- extensive code-switching leads to borrowing
- hypothesis: when an individual switches codes extensively they project another personality,
therefore making them a slightly different person

Societal multilingualism
- very little monolingual countries exist
- the presence of more LGS marks multilingual speech communities, although not every
member has access to more LGS
- how do these communities emerge?
a) migration -> taking one’s LG with them (voluntary/involuntary)
b) urbanization -> emergence of urban centers -> moving to the cities
c) conquest/colonization: colonizing LG being pressed on the community, for example
English vs Hindu
d) voluntary federation (peaceful imposing, Switzerland and Belgium), always potential for
LG conflict
- LG shift: a community of speakers shifts from L1 to the dominant majority LG for a reason
and a purpose (unlike code-switching)
- can happen from one generation to the next
- those who refuse to shift are called LG loyalists: doing all in their power not to allow the
shift to happen
- when the speakers don’t exercise loyalty the LG disappears (native inhabitants of the
northern American continent)
- how to prevent a LG shift? By isolation
- LG death is not final, a LG can be revitalized (modern Hebrew)
- LG rights: a) rights of a LG to survive, inherent value in the diversity of LGS, b) rights of a
speaker to use the given LG: contact and conflict
- Lg contact: emergence of pidgins and creoles
- pidgins: limited set of purposes, unbalanced, growing into creoles, nobody’s L1
- creole: 2nd generation pidgin, a native LG to the children
- as LGS change they grow into something new
- decreolization: introduction to one of the LGS that originally make the pidgin
- LGS not in conflict but they coexist for different purposes, functional allocation of the LGS
-> diglossia
- high vs low variety, education vs vernacular
Linguistic change
- the change in itself is not easy to observe but rather the result
- synchronic vs diachronic variation
- change with structural consequence is “real change”, like the Tudor vowel shift
- two types of changes: coalescence & split
- coalescence: 2 structurally different things merge into 1, for example meat/meet, no
etymological link but the distinction is lost,
- split: no distinction before but there is one today: house vs to house
- coalescence and split can occur on all levels -> internal LG change with such mechanisms
- there must be external change as well: borrowing -> a LG has influence on another LG,
however it has nothing to do with code-switching, instead it gets incorporated into the LG
- borrowing occurs when the LG needs names for concepts it doesn’t have or because the
word is popular in a sphere
- whether or not the borrowing remains depends on the speech community
- Schleicher’s tree model - LG change looks like a tree
- it’s not just a linear process, change can be more complex -> the wave model: change can be
multifocal, many changes occur at the same time while the impacts act together
- complex dynamic systems approach: don’t observe things in isolation, something is always
part of a system
- synchronic and diachronic dimensions let us observe variation only, the phenomenon but not
the consequences.
- one can observe the change but they need time to prove the point
- panel study vs trend study
- panel study: a set of individuals is observed and their LG use is recorded, years later they are
recorded again
- trend study: a lot of individuals are observed and years later the same age group is observed
- differences: time and target participants
- issues with the process of LG change: comprehensive approach, the diachronic and
synchronic aspects should not be observed separately
- Labov: 2 kinds of change: from above and below:
- from above: conscious, intentional, institutional LG change, prestige
- from below: grass roots, unconscious & no direction, moving from the norm
- sound changes in the lexicon of a LG -> lexical diffusion, it will follow a predictable pattern
 Class 8

LG and culture
- framework of Sapir and Whorf hypothesis: the structure of a LG determines how we see the
world, based on the observations of the Hopi LG
- LGS’ approach to reality is different, structural differences occur
- vocabulary related to kinship or kinship outside the family -> not usually stable
- study of taxonomy + folk taxonomy -> cultural patterns and traditions
- color vocabulary: description according to the wavelength -> a continuum, no breaks: basic
color terms: black, white, red, green: they should not refer to subdivisions, should be
applicable in a general sense and in general use (not restricted)
- minimum 2 basic color terms
- color is and isn’t objective, it’s hard describing it in physical terms
- prototype theory (Evelyn Roche) -> you don’t think of an academic definition but you list a
prototypical example (fruit: apple, breakfast: eggs) -> help interpret the framework of the LA
- study of euphemism and taboos: religion, sex, formality, broken with a reason and a purpose
- side effects: taboo terms may sound like something else in another LG
- euphemism -> lightening the term, wrapping into nice LG
- PC: not wanting to use LG that is offensive to anyone, trying to avoid confrontation,
political in nature

LG and gender
- grammatical gender: meaning based vs meaning based
- Robin Lakoff: LG and woman’s place -> her own interpretations, experiences, conducted no
research but inspired others
- gender differences between males and females: vocabulary, referring, distinctions due to
power relations
- “men have the power and women don’t”, women and men develop different patterns of LG
use: women are more effected by the affective filter
- solidarity (f) vs power (m)
- why do these differences exist?
a) Physiological differences between the brains
b) a pattern of social organization based on dominance (power register)
c) difference in social organizations and sociolinguistic subcultures of the genders
 Audiolecture

LG planning

-purpose of LG planning: engineer LG to meet the requirements of access to power, and

exercising that power to determine what its used for
- issues of LG choice
- LG planning was introduced firs in the 50s-60s -> indicates that there is a deliberate process
controlled by a power center whereas the LG policy is open to interpretation influenced by a
variety of parties -> meaning: modifying LG form & LG use
- can be conducted in 3 fields
1. Status planning: deciding what sort of status a LG has in a context, the status can be official
LG (one or several, some may be banned, dominant vs minority LG) (Norway: diglossia, 2
official LGS: version of Danish and a variety of regional Norwegian, less prestigious,
Belgium: Flemish(Dutch) and French, Spain: Catalan and Basque, Soviet union in the Baltic)
LG policy decision are political decisions, churches can conduct LG policies (Catholic church
before the reformation, usage of Latin) (Swahili: colonization aftermath, locals didn’t want to
use the colonizer LGS)
2. Corpus planning: the body/structure of the LG, modification of the structure, seen as an
attempt to fix a problem (unsuitability in field terminology), standardization is an act of
corpus planning: changes in the Turkish in the 20s, script modification from Arabic to Latin,
changes in the Romanian LG.
- creation of new vocabulary, revitalizing old words or borrowing from other LGS, coinage
(touchpad)
- manifestation of LG in written form – orthography changes
- normativism vs prescriptivism
- normativism: only one correct version of using LG and any other way is a deviation from the
norm
- prescriptivism: particular standards of LG use in particular contexts are to be prescribed, on
one hand there is one version to be used, and in another hand the other is correct
3. LG acquisition planning/LG education policy: how it can be controlled what LGS are
taught or not in the educational system (Russian in Hungary)
- also related: LG diffusion policy – (linguistic imperialism) LG education in a way where a
particular LG is spread in a region, either planned or unplanned (diffusion)
- unplanned: no attempt to spread a LG but it happens so that it’s spread by business people
(trade), missionaries
- planned LG diffusion: internal or external
a) internal: in a particular country all citizens are required to have competence in a LG
b) external: spreading the LG outside the country and those people are expected to learn it
(colonies, Russian in Hungary) (linguistic imperialism)
- linguicism: “linguistic racism”, superiority: claims that some LGS are superior to others,
ability to express concepts in different ways than others

Cobarrubias (1983) language planning: linguistic assimilation, linguistic pluralism,

vernacularization and internationalism
- linguistic assimilation: the belief that everyone regardless of origin should learn the
dominant LG of the society (France, US)
- linguistic pluralism: the recognition of more than one LG which takes a variety of forms. It
can be territorially or individually based, or combined, complete or partial, so that all or some
aspects of life can be conducted in more than 1 LG.
- internationalization: the adoption of a non-indigenous LG of wider communication as an
official LG for purposes as trade and education, in some countries two LGS can share the
status