Academic journal article Researchers World

Institutional Language Planning and the Programs in Filipino of State Universities and Colleges

Academic journal article Researchers World

Institutional Language Planning and the Programs in Filipino of State Universities and Colleges

Article excerpt

INTRODUCTION:

Language planning research has increasingly been studied with"language planning practice' in connection with decision-making on language problems. However, the practitioners, to mention some such as the legislators, policy implementers, government agencies and language academy personnel have not yet turned to utilize the language planning research to any major degree as a guide to their own procedures (Fishman 1974). Since Fishman, one of the first sociologists succeeded in focusing attention on the importance of language planning, the need to concentrate on language planning research perse will be forced to shed light on this undertaking in the future. Certainly, language planning research can only gain by attending more advanced language settings (Fishman - 1973).

Language planning as defined by Haugen (1966, 1969), one of the fathers of language planning, is the normative work of language academies, all forms of what is commonly known as cultivation and all proposals for language reforms or standardization. Thus, he discusses policy formulation, modification, elaboration and implementation which is revised and refined by Neustupny (1970 in Fishman 1974) and adds cultivation. According to Sibayan (1999, this is the intellectualization of language which is included in the study of Banawa (2005). Neustupny views "cultivation' as being a sequentially later and more advanced stage of language planning. Rubin and Jernudd (1971) refer to "language planning' as the organizational efforts which are directed to deliberate change. This is all about decision-making on language as supported by Fishman (1971) who describes language planning as the organized pursuit of solutions to language problems, usually at the national level. Likewise Ferguson (1968) emphasizes that there are always peculiar characteristics of a language which becomes a standard language, namely: (a) it is accepted by the majority of the population; (b) it is being used by the educated people; (c) it is mutually intelligible; and (d) there is a slight modification to be responsive to all the needs of the society.

In Garvin's analysis (1974), the concept of language planning has two distinct differences: the selection of a particular language as a national language (and official language) and the development of language for literacy and other endeavors for standardization. Gorman (1968) discusses the distinction between language planning and language allocation. He states that the language planning is a decision of authorities to sustain, to widen or limit the boundary of the usage of language in a particular situation. The logic of language planning is based on how language is viewed as a resource of society (Jernudd and Das Gupta 1971).

On the other hand, Cooper (1989) presents three focuses on language planning which are corpus planning, planning on the language status and planning on the language acquisition. The third focus aims to increase the population of speakers, to make changes on the negative attitude toward its use and to develop a better speaking and writing ability of those who have weak competence in this level. Process on the acquisition of communicative competence is not entirely completed until an individual knows what language to speak or write, to whom and when to use the language, so it is incomplete until knowing where and when "academe' is and is not befitting (Fishman 1971).With respect to language policy planning, there are three types of language policy namely: the official language policy, which is the recognition by a government as to which language are to be used and for what purposes; the educational language policy, which concern about what languages will be used as the medium of instruction and as subjects of study at the various levels of public and private education; followed by general language policy, which is the unofficial approval of government regarding language use in business, in mass communications and in contacts with foreigners (Noss, 1967, Karam in Fishman, 1974). …

Search by... Author
Show... All Results Primary Sources Peer-reviewed

Oops!

An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.