Language Attitudes in Language

Policy and Planning

BERNADETTE O’ROURKE AND GABRIELLE HOGAN-BRUN

A basic premise of modern linguistics is that all languages are functionally equal (Edwards,
1979, 1994). In the same way that anthropologists will not judge the relative worth of
cultures, linguists believe that one language is as good and adequate as any other (Grillo,
1989, p. 173; Trudgill, 1983, p. 205). Despite this, languages are often evaluated and judg-
ments are made about their worth as well as that of their speakers, leading to the national
distribution and transnational hierarchies of languages that we know today. In applied
linguistics such evaluations and judgments are frequently looked at under the generic
heading of “language attitudes.”
Much of the work on language attitudes has been conducted under the rubric of the
social psychology of language. The key tenet advanced was that attitudes exert influence
on (language) behavior. Three types of components of attitude are commonly distinguished:
cognitive (knowledge-based), connotative (behavioral), and affective (feelings about lan-
guage). Other disciplines including linguistic anthropology, the sociology of language, and
sociolinguistics and education have also shared overlapping concerns and involvement
on language attitudes or the social awareness of language. In many of these disciplines
the term language attitude is not always explicitly used, with preference given to related
concepts such as ideology, opinion, belief, habit, value, evaluation, and perception. As a
result a great deal of attitudinal data is often overlooked in many contemporary reviews
of language attitude research (Garrett, Coupland, & Williams, 2003).
Language attitude and its related terms frequently appear in the context of language
policy and planning. Indeed, it is often an implicit or explicit assumption of much policy
and planning that attitudes can or should change (Baker, 1992, p. 97). In some instances
such policy and planning are in fact largely, if not principally, concerned with inculcating
attitudes either to the language or its speakers (Lewis, 1981, p. 262). Therefore, changing
language attitudes, beliefs, or ideologies is often seen as the first step in the process of
language revitalization. The quest for (improved) status and solidarity are often regarded
as the chief motivating attitudes for language behavior of communities (see Ryan & Giles,
1982). Reversing the low-prestige status and stigmatized identities associated with languages
such as Irish, Galician, and Welsh constituted the central language-planning problem
facing these minority languages during the 20th century.
The different facets of language-planning measures including status, corpus, and acqui-
sition planning, are often put in place with the intention of changing language attitudes.
The role of status planning, for instance, in facilitating the acceptance of a language by
members of society, is regarded as particularly important in making attitudes more positive.
In modifying the status it affects the (perceived) prestige of a language. Therefore status
is a key dimension of meaning within which attitudes toward a language can be measured.
During the 20th century reversing the low prestige of languages was often done alongside
their legal or constitutional recognition, particularly in countries where regime changes
involved language inversion. Perceptions about the relative status of a language are strongly
influenced by its value as a form of what Bourdieu (1991) refers to as “linguistic capital.”

The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, Edited by Carol A. Chapelle.

© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0607
2 language attitudes in language policy and planning

It thus follows that status-enhancing initiatives such as the inclusion of the language in key
institutional domains including education, public administration, and the media have the
potential to alter negative perceptions about the worth of a language. For example, follow-
ing the demise of the Soviet Union, deliberate efforts were made in the newly independent
states to influence the allocation of functions of the reinstated national languages across
all domains, which helped reconsolidate their former status.
Corpus and acquisition planning can also be influential in altering language attitudes
and beliefs. Cooper (1989, pp. 155–6) for instance points out that corpus planning efforts can
strengthen speakers’ dignity and self-worth. In minority language contexts, revitalizing
the low-prestige variety of a spoken form and developing a standard which could allow
for its use in formal domains from which it was previously absent shows that the language
is capable of formal and literary expression. Similarly, acquisition planning goals designed
to create the opportunity to learn a language, as well as incentives to learn it, can have a
positive effect on language attitudes. Especially in the postcolonial context it can serve to
answer functional concerns and lead to empowerment through viable literacy development.
Extending a focus on objectives and targets, goals, or “ends” (Cooper, 1989), and going
beyond attitudes per se, Ager (2001) considered “motivation” in language policy and
planning. He proposed that motivation consists of seven motives (identity, ideology, image,
insecurity, inequality, integration, instrumentality) which function as attitudinal prompters
of agents in their attempts to achieve specific goals. However, he stresses that motives are
socially conditioned, are not always clear, nor openly stated or understandable, and that
they also depend on changing attitudes and beliefs as embedded in the fundamental cultural
values individuals hold (Ager, 2001, pp. 128–9). Therefore, since attitudes do not neces-
sarily predict the strategies actors will implement, the functioning of both motivation and
attitudes in language policy and planning processes is complex.
Naturally, ability of language policy and planning efforts to change language attitudes
cannot be automatically assumed. This is not least, as Schiffman (1996, p. 119) notes, because
implementation of such initiatives is almost always the weakest link in the policy and
planning process, warning that while fiery rhetoric is one thing, carrying out the intention
of the law is another. Moreover, seemingly well-intentioned language policy and planning
initiatives can, rather than improve attitudes, actually have the opposite effect. Status
planning, intending to enhance the symbolic value of a language, can sometimes be seen
as antagonistic by members of the population and provoke negative attitudes toward the
language as was the case for example under the ideological promotion of Kiswahili in
Tanzania (see Blommaert, 2006). This can be salient if planning measures are seen to raise
the status of certain groups within society and not others or if status measures are seen
to provide advantage to some members of society but not to others.
In terms of corpus planning, Grenoble and Whaley (2006, pp. 154–6) argue that although
standardization has undeniable benefits for minority languages in reversing language
decline, the process can also facilitate continued language loss. Instead of strengthening
speakers’ dignity and self-worth, as Cooper (1989) suggests, standardization may in fact
further stigmatize and isolate existing minority language speakers. In attempting to rid
the minority language of influences from the dominant contact language, standardizers
can promote policies which disempower vernacular forms of the language spoken in
everyday contexts (Coulmas, 1989; Fishman, 2006; Woolard, 1998), as happened in the case
of Galician.
The task of measuring the effects of language policy and planning initiatives on language
attitudes is also made difficult by the fact that such initiatives do not exist in a social or
cultural vacuum. Instead, they take place in particular sociolinguistic and sociocultural
settings, and their nature and scope can only be fully understood in relation to these set-
tings (Ferguson, 1977, p. 9). Language-related policies and planning measures are therefore
 language attitudes in language policy and planning 3

not autonomous processes (Ó Riagáin, 1997) but exist in an environment with physical,
geographical, political, and socioeconomic components (Ager, 1996, p. 11). As Spolsky
(2004, p. 8) notes, language and language policy both exist in highly complex, interacting
and dynamic contexts, the modification of any part of which may have correlated effects
(and causes) on any other part. It thus follows that a host of nonlinguistic factors (political,
demographic, social, religious, cultural, psychological, bureaucratic) regularly account for
any attempt by persons or groups to intervene in the language practices and the beliefs
of others, and for subsequent changes to occur.
Schiffman (1996) notes that assumptions about languages and perceptions about their
value are often deeply rooted in a society’s linguistic culture which he defines as “the
totality of ideas, values, beliefs, attitudes, prejudices, myths, religious strictures, and all
the other cultural ‘baggage’ that speakers bring to their dealings with language from their
culture” (2006, p. 112). Both language ideology and language policy are embedded in
linguistic culture and hence fundamentally linked. For Spolsky, language ideology is
“language policy with the manager left out,” or “what people think should be done [with
language]” (2004, p. 14). Hence changing value perceptions of languages do not depend
exclusively, or even necessarily, on any official or legal status conferred by a state through
its exclusive, legislative, or judicial branches.
Thus, ideologies about language generally and specific languages in particular delimit
to a large extent what is and is not possible in the realm of language planning and policy
making (Ricento, 2006, p. 9). It follows that, although policy and planning may be used
to change attitudes toward a language or its speakers, existing language attitudes,
ideologies, and beliefs can also be seen as a basis for policy and planning (Spolsky, 2004),
as in the wholesale take-up of Hebrew in Israel. Reflecting the ideological views and
orientations of a society, government, institutions, or individuals, a language policy, then,
represents the whole political, social, and economic environment.
Blommaert (2006, p. 244) argues that language policy is invariably based on linguistic
ideologies, on images of “societally desirable” forms of language usage and of the “ideal”
linguistic landscape of society, in turn derived from larger (discursively constructed) socio-
political ideologies. It is therefore possible to infer from language policy decisions or
statements what the ideological orientation of a society is in relation to assumptions about
a specific language or language in general. This relates to the fact, as Spolsky (2004, p. 14)
points out, that the members of a speech community share a general set of beliefs about
appropriate language practices, sometimes favoring a consensual ideology, assigning values
and prestige to various aspects of language varieties used in it. It thus follows that we
cannot assess the success of language policies or planning initiatives without reference to
culture, belief systems, and attitudes about language which are deeply embedded within
a society’s structures (see Schiffman, 1996). We can, however, suggest that, as a (short-term)
social construct of a given community, a language policy is prone to fail if it is not in
consonance with the society’s linguistic culture.

SEE ALSO: Language and Identity; Language, Culture, and Context; Language Policy and
Planning; Prestige Planning; Standardization in Human Language Technology

References

Ager, D. (1996). Language policies in Britain and France: The processes of policy. London, England:
Cassells.
Ager, D. (2001). Motivation in language planning and language policy. Clevedon, England: Multilingual
Matters.
4 language attitudes in language policy and planning

Baker, C. (1992). Attitudes and language. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.

Blommaert, J. (2006). Language policy and national identity. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction
to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 238–54). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power (J. B. Thompson, Ed.). Cambridge, England:
Polity.
Cooper, R. (1989). Language planning and social change. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.
Coulmas, F. (1989). Language adaptation. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Language adaptation (pp. 1–25).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Edwards, J. (1979). Language and disadvantage. London, England: Edward Arnold.
Edwards, J. (1994). Multilingualism. London, England: Routledge.
Ferguson, C. (1977). Sociolinguistic settings of language planning. In J. Rubin, B. Jernudd, J. Das
Gupta, J. Fishman, & C. Ferguson (Eds.), Language planning processes (pp. 9–29). Hague,
Netherlands: Mouton.
Fishman, J. A. (2006). Do not leave your language alone: The hidden status agendas within corpus
planning in language policy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Garret, P., Coupland, N., & Williams, A. (2003). Investigating language attitudes. Cardiff: University
of Wales Press.
Grenoble, L. A., & Whaley, L. J. (2006). Saving languages: An introduction to language revitalization.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Grillo, R. D. (1989). Dominant languages: Languages and hierarchy in Britain and France. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, E. G. (1981). Bilingualism and bilingual education. Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Ó Riagáin, P. (1997). Language policy and social reproduction in Ireland 1893–1993. Oxford, England:
Clarendon Press.
Ricento, T. (2006). Language policy: Theory and practice—an introduction. In T. Ricento (Ed.)
An introduction to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 10–23). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Ryan, E. B., & Giles, G. (1982). Attitudes towards language variation. London, England: Edward
Arnold.
Schiffman, H. F. (1996). Linguistic culture and language policy. London, England: Routledge.
Schiffman, H. F. (2006). Linguistic policy and linguistic culture. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduc-
tion to language policy: Theory and method (pp. 111–26). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Trudgill, P. (1983). On dialect. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Woolard, K. A. (1998). Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In B. B. Schieffelin,
K. A. Woolard, & P. V. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory (pp. 3–47).
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Suggested Readings

Dorian, N. (1994). Purism vs. compromise in language revitalization and language revival.
Language in Society, 23, 479–94.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London, England: Longman.
Garrett, P. (2010). Attitudes to language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Jaffe, A. (1999). Ideologies in action: Language politics on Corsica. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.
Spolsky, B. (Ed.) (in press). The Cambridge handbook of language policy. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.