L A N G U A G E P L A N N İN G : H E G E M O N Y OR S O C İA L J U S T IC E ? Kutlay Y ağmur M iddle E ast Technical University The practices of Language Planning and Policy Making is highly polemical in multilingual communities. In this paper we will examine Language Planning in terms of the principles of "Language Rights" and "Language Hegemony". The issues discussed in this paper are widespread throughout the world. IN T R O D U C T I O N In this p ap er we are going to review two articles in relation to L anguage Planning and L a n g u a g e R ights' in the U nited States o f A m erica, C alifornia. In these two opposing articles, 'for' and 'against' argum ents are raised in relation to the latest 'E n g lish L an g u ag e A m en d m en t/ P roposition 63' in C alifo rn ia. W hile E duardo H e rn a n d e z -C h a v e z l (1988) raises issues against Proposition 63, C onnie D yste^ (1989) argues m ainly for the Proposition. In the history o f m ultilingual societies, the struggle for survival o f the m inority languages against the dom inance o f the m ajority language is a never ending story and U nited States is a typical exam ple for that situation. In this struggle L anguage Planning and Policy M aking plays an im portant role in the structure o f pow er and (in )eq u ality th ro u g h o u t the w orld, especially in m u ltilin g u al so cieties like the U .S.A ., C anada, A ustralia, U.K., and form er U SSR. L an g u ag e P lan n in g is defined by T ollefson^ (1991) as the p lanners' conscious efforts to influence the structure or function o f language/s. These deliberate efforts m ight involve language purification, language revival (H ebrew ), language reform (Turkish), language standardization (Swahili), and language m odem ization (Swedish) 1 Hemandez-Chavez, E. 1988. 'Language Policy and Language Rights in the United States' in T. Skutnabb-Kangas & J. Cummins (eds.) Minority Education: From Shame to Struggle. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. ^Dyste, C. 1989. 'Proposition 63: The California English Language Amendment', Applied Linguistics, 10-3. ■^Tollefson, J.W. 1991. Planning Language, Planning Inequality. London: Longman. Dilbilim Araştırmaları 1995 97 (E astm an, 1983)*. Therefore language planning practices are view ed from different perspectives in m onolingual and m ultilingual societies. It is clear that depending on the situation in a country or in a speech com m unity language planning m ay take different forms. O n the o th er hand, L an g u ag e P olicy is defin ed as "the in s titu tio n a liz a tio n o f lan g u ag e as a basis for d istin ctio n s am ong soeial groups o r elasses" (T o llefso n , 1991). L a n g u ag e p o lic y is seen as a m e c h a n ism fo r the e s ta b lis h m e n t o f "hegem ony" by the dom inant group/s. A s claim ed by A pple and M u y s k e n ^ (1987), language planning does not take place in a soeial vacuum . It is affected by m any facto rs like: so e ia l d em o g ra p h ic fa c to r s im plicating the n u m b er o f lan g u ag e s spoken, the num ber o f their speakers, geographical distribution; linguistic fa c to r s im p lic a tin g the status o f th e lan g u ag e /s (degree o f in tern atio n al use, literary tradition, ete.); the so cio -p sych o lo g ica l fa c to r s concerning the attitudes o f people tow ards a language, soeial m eanings attached to various languages; the p o litic a l fa c t o r s w hich are the m ost influential in language planning; and fınally, relig io u s fa c to r s the use o f local languages in the spread o f religion, for instance, the spread o f A rabic through İslam (W ardhaugh, 1987)3. x h o se five factors proposed by A pple & M uysken (1987: 56-57) are pertaining to 'Status planning' (decision procedures) but it is only the first step in language planning as there are also C orpus P la n n in g (C odifıcation and Standardization procedures); im plem entation (educational spread); and fınally, Elaboration (functional development). O n the other hand, K aplan (cited in B ald au f 1988: 16)^ points out that language plan n in g is alw ays open to the influence o f key individuals, bureaucratic struetures and in stitu tio n s, w hich act as 'intervening variables' in the lan g u ag e p la n n in g p ro c e s s. S om e o f those v a ria b le s are stated as p erceiv ed eco n o m ic d em an d , in stru m en tal benefits (source o f inform ation, scientific ex ch an g e), n atio n alism , e th n ic id e n tity , relig io n , h isto rical facto rs, the gro w th o f u rb a n iz a tio n , and b u reau cracies and education (B aldauf, 1988). L ike A pple & M u y sk en 's fa c to r s , K ap lan 's in terven in g v a ria b le s relate very closely to status plan n in g (decision procedures). ̂Eastman, C. 1983. Language Planning: An Introduction. San Francisco: Chandler & Sharp. ■^Appel, R. & P. Muysken. 1988. Language Contact and Bilingualism. London: Edward Amold. ^Wardhaugh, R. 1987. Languages in Competition: Dominance, Diversity, and Decline. London: Basil Blackwell. ^Baldauf, R.B. & A. Luke. 1988. Language Planning and Education in Australasia and the South Pacific. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 98 Yağmur H o w ev er, o u r m ain co n cern w ill be d e m o n stra tin g the m an ip u lab le nature o f language as it is subject to social and political pressures. T he articles chosen for this discussion illustrate the H egem onic P rin cip le o f language planning (D yste, 1989) and Social Jııstice Principle (Hem andez-Chavez, 1988). H egem ony Principle is discussed by T ollefson (1991) along with Skutnabb-K angas (1986)1, anj phillipson (1988)^ from a m inority perspective. Tollefson claim ed that "people who speak the p referred variety d eserve to be in p ositions o f authority a nd p o w e r a n d to control p o litica l and econom ic institutions. (...) To the extetıt that this fe e lin g o f naturalness o f language use becom es pervasive, the dom inant group has established hegem ony, w hich is the su ccessfu lp ro d u ctio n o f ideology." A chievem ent o f hegem ony is m ost con trov ersial in m ultilingual and industrialized societies; w hereas the hegem ony o f certain languages, nam ely English, is not only tolerated by the 'developing' coun tries but also considered a legitim ate m odel for society (T ollefson, 1991). H owever, in countries like the U SA , U.K., and A ustralia the struggle o f ethnic groups to m aintain their m other tongue is very closely tied to econom ic and political policies o f those countries. Even though G iles (1977)3 and his follow ers claim that ethnolinguistic vitality o f the groups determ ine the survival o f m in o rity languages, T ollefson (1991) su g g ests that the survival o f m inority languages is not sim ply a function o f the 'internal vitality' o f m inority groups, but ra th e r the stren g th o f the d o m in an t group and the h isto rical con seq u en ces o f hegem ony. Fishm an (1989)^ also com m ents on the m atter that there is no d o u b t in my mirıd that language a n d ethnicity in A m erica can n o t m ake it on their own, in terms o fp u b l ic p o licy a n d at p u b lic expense, both because they are too w eak and also because the opposition to them is ready-made and therefore ever-ready. On the other hand, H ernandez-C havez's (1988) paper calls into question the social- ju s tic e issue o f L anguage Planning m ainly on the hum anitarian grounds. Skutnabb- 1 Skutnabb-Kangas, T. & R. Phillipson. 1986. 'Denial of Linguistic Rights: The New Mental Slavery' paper presented at l l t h VVorld Congress of Sociology, New Delhi, India. -Phillipson, R. 1988. ’Linguicism: structures and ideologies in Linguistic Imperialism' in T. Skutnabb-Kangas & J. Cummins (eds.) Minority Education: From Shatne to Struggle. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. "Giles, H. (ed.) 1977. Language, Ethnicity and Intergroup Relations. London: Academic Press. ^Fishman, J. 1988. Language & Ethnicity in Minority Sociolinguistic Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Dilbilim Araştırmaları 1995 99 K angas (1986) claim s that "different languages have different p olitical rights, n o t by v ir tu e o f a n y in h e r e n t lin g u istic characteristics, b u t d e p e n d e n t on the p o w e r rela tio n sh ip s betw een the sp ea kers o f those la n g u a g es.” She claim s th at unless m inority languages have offıcial use (as the m edium o f instruction in schools), they will not survive; that is w hy, there has to be legislation openly prom oting m inority languages vvithin a 'm aintenance-oriented' framevvork. Sim ilarly, P hillipson (1989) claim s that L in g u icism is the very threat to L anguage R ights o f m inorities because "the ideologies a n d structures w hich are used to legitimate, effectuate a nd reproduce an urıequal division o fp o w e r and resources between groups are d efined on the basis o f lang u a g e”, th at o f hegem ony. B A C K G R O U N D TO T H E STUD İES U N D ER C O N SID ER A TIO N As sum m arized in detail both by D yste (1989) and H ernandez-C havez (1988), there have been so m any attem pts to regulate the role o f language since C alifornia ceded from M exico to the U .S.A . in 1849. T he Treaty m ade in that tim e p ro m ised that E nglish and S panish w ould be given equal status in the operations o f governm ent and education in that region. H ow ever, after one and a h a lf a century, the E nglish L an g u ag e is ch o sen to be the offıcia l language o f the S tate, w hich is the fırst legislature act in the history o f the U nited State. In other States, E nglish is given a sy m b o lic reco g n itio n ; b u t P ro p o sitio n 63 is an offıcial leg islatio n , the ro le o f w hich is defined as follovvs: It requires the Legislature to take ali steps necessary to ensure that the role o f E nglish as the com m on language o f the State o f C alifornia is p reserved a n d enhanced, a n d to m ake no law which dim inishes o r ignores the role o f E nglish as the com m on language o f the State o f California. (D yste, 1989). H ow ever, the m o st im portant aspect o f the Proposition 63 is that rather than being a top-dow n act, the legislation was initiated by certain pressure groups and voted by the m ajority o f the public on the grounds that E nglish m ust be the only dom inant language in C alifo rn ia. On the o th er hand, as discussed in detail by H ernandez- C havez (1988), in the history o f the U .S.A ., there have been m any cases o f the use o f m inority languages in public places, schools, courts, ete. being banned due to v arious reasons. M ainly in tim es o f crises, banning o f m inority languages and diserim inatory m oves w ere very comm on. 100 Yağmur A r g u m e n ts fo r P r o p o s itio n 63 D y ste (1 9 8 9 ) a rg u es for P ro p o sitio n 63 by cla im in g th at u n le ss E n g lish is g iv en th e o ffic ia l sta tu s, A m e r ic a 's fu tu r e m ig h t be in je o p a r d y due to e th n ic strife. S he gives a long account o f the history o f the argum ents for E nglish to be the o fficial language o f C alifornia. D y ste structures her argum ent around the concept o f N ation al U nity. D yste's argum ent can be sum m arized as follovvs: X the U .S .A . has alvvays been a m o n o lin g u a l, E n g lish -sp e a k in g country; bilingual education and bilingual voting rights threaten dom inant State o f E nglish language by introducing language divisions vvhich vvill gradually displace E nglish; X today's im m igrants' are different from those o f the p ast as they com e from L atin A m erica and A sia and they are unvvilling to learn English; X use o f ethnic languages other than English delays the econom ic, cultural and linguistic assim ilation o f those im m igrants; X m ultilingualism threatens the political and cultural unity o f the U.S.A. A r g u m e n ts A g a in s t P r o p o s itio n 63 In his argum en ts ag ain st P roposition 63, H ernan d ez-C h av ez raises som e issues m ainly on the social ju stice principle and hum anitarian grounds. H e claim s that language on a cultural level is "the sym b o lic expression o f com m unity erıcoding a g ro u p 's values, its folkvvays a n d its history. Socially, language is the m ost p o w erfu l rneans o f in te ra c tio n a n d co m m u n ica tio n ; a n d it is th ro u g h la n g u a g e th a t an individual o r a group seeks and attains participation in society. The denial o f a peo p le's developm ent and use o f its native tongue is thus a d enial o f its participation in society a n d o f its very peoplehood. " H ernandez-C havez defınes language rights as the right o f a people to learn, to keep and use its own language in ali m anner o f public and private affairs and that to do so is a hum an right. Hovvever, he adds, the dom inant group Controls ali the institutions and develops m echanism s to lim it the access o f m inority groups to services, and Dilbilim Araştırmaları 1995 101 oppo rtu n ities av ailable to people. B ecause o f the barriers, he claim s, ethnic group m em bers can not participate in ali m anner o f life; and finally, he adds that since the m inority groups can not attain a level o f proficiency, their right to participate in life and enjoy the sam e rights as others is ignored. He adds th at even if they acquire a high co m p eten ce in the d o m in an t gro u p 's language, som e other barriers to full access will be faced. In his final analysis, H ern an d ez-C h av ez hig h lig h ts the im portance o f b ilin g u al education fo r ethnic groups. H e believes m o th er tongue teaching w ould function as tra n sitio n to E n g lish and the p u rp o se is m o re e ffe c tiv e teac h in g o f E n g lish . H ow ever, he adds, the opponents o f b ilin g u al education claim s that it is sim ply m a in ta in in g the lan g u ag es and cu ltu res o f ethnic m in o rities at p u b lic expense. M o reo v er, he claim s, both the p ro p o n en ts and opp on ents o f bilingual education ignore the fact that learning one's native tongue is a right. Finally, he argues that if the native language has not been developed, the child loses a pow erful m eans o f learning. In short, the child under these con d itio n s is denied the rig h t to an equal ed u catio n al o p p o rtu n ity eq ually as im p o rta n t, the failu re to d ev elo p the hom e lan g u ag e is often a cause o f alienation betvveen children, their parents and their com m unity. C O N C L U S I O N A s we have seen the argum ents fo r and ag ain st can be grouped around the social ju s tic e ’e q u ity ' p rin c ip le and h eg em ony p rin c ip le o f L an g u ag e P lan n in g . T h e argum ents fo r the banning o f m inority languages claim ed that m inority language teaching m ig h t be a potential th reat to th e status o f E nglish vvhich could lead to tu rm o il in th e co u n try , and the only so lu tio n is m ak in g E n g lish the o ffıcia l lan g u ag e o f the State and fo rcin g eth n ic gro u p s to learn E n g lish by b a n n in g languages other than English. T hey also believe that bilingual education is a barrier to full participation and com plete assim ilation for ethnic children. O n the other hand, the argum ents against Proposition 63 claim that speaking one's m o th er to n g u e is a hum an right and the use o f a child's language is som ething to vvhich s/he is m orally entitled to. It is im p o rtan t to note that Proposition 63 passed by a margin of 73 percent to 27 percent vvhich shovvs strong p reference fo r the hegem ony o f English am ong people. People voted and by doing that they announced th at lan g u ag es o th er than E nglish m ust be banned. T he strongest su pporters o f P ro p o sitio n 63 vvere "whites, the less educated, a n d co n serva tiv es; vvhile the opponents w ere H ispanics andA sians, highly educated, and Liberals." It is quite clear that even in a country like the U .S .A ., w here H um an R ig h ts are v alu ed the m ost, languages other than E nglish can be banned. A nd in doin g that th e y c la im e d th a t th e p o lit ic a l a n d c ıılt u r a l u n ity o f th e S t a t e is th r e a te n e d . R E F E R E N C E S A ppel, R. & P. M uysken. 1988. Language C ontact a n d B ilingualism . London: Edward Amold. B aldauf, R. B. & A. Luke. 1988. Language Planning a nd Education in A usîralasia a n d the South Pacific. C levedon: M ultilingual M atters. D yste, C. 1989. Proposition 63: The C alifornia E nglish L anguage A m endm ent, A p p lie d L inguistics, 10-3. E astm an, C. 1983. Language P lanning: A n Introduction. San Francisco: C handler & Sharp. F ishm an, J. 1988. Language & E thnicity in M inority Sociolinguistic P erspective. C levedon: M ultilingual M atters. G iles, H. (Ed.) 1977. Language, Ethnicity, a n d Intergroup Relatiotıs. London: A cadem ic Press. H em andez-C havez, E. 1988. 'Language Policy and L anguage R ights in the U nited States' in T. Skutnabb-K angas & J. C um m ins (Eds.) Minority- E ducation: F rom Sham e to Strııggle. Clevedon: M ultilingual M atters. Skutnabb-K angas. T. & R. Phiilipson. 1986. 'Denial o f L inguistic R ights: T he N ew M ental Slavery' paper presented at 1 lth W orld C ongress o f Sociology, Nevv Delhi, India. T ollefson, J.W . 1991. Planning Language, Planning Inequality. London: L ongm an. W ardhaugh, R. 1987. Languages in Competition: D om inance, D iversity, a nd D ecline. London: Basil Blackvvell. 102 Yağmur