Examining the Limits of Language Policy in multilingual settings: Causes, Consequences, and Recommendations for Strategic Interventions

Policy is an elusive term. Social scientists would summarise policy as endeavours made by some key social actors (e.g., the state, community or an individual) with an intention to influence their own or public behaviour to accomplish certain objective(s) which they ponder as necessary (Howlett and Mukerjee, 2017). National-level language policy and planning (henceforth, LPP), which is implemented from the top often as part of public policy, is perceived as “an act of prioritisation, namely the relative ranking of languages (…) by their respective importance according to certain criteria such as efficiency or symbolic value” (Peled 2014: 302). The ultimate goal is to design a set of official legislations to govern people’s linguistic practices. LP refers to either the unplanned policy—the vast, customary consensus and practices that govern a speech community's choice of linguistic variants—or the planned policy—a specific, formal directive that is explicitly adopted for a given time and place. Through a systematic discussion around global LP case examples, this note attempts to identify some recurrent non-linguistic factors contributing to LP collapse. Comparing and contrasting different case examples, the entry further intends to move away from a centralised and rigid approach of policy formation towards adaptive, equity-focused, and bottom-up planning models that will prioritise continuous evaluation and local expertise. These recommendations may offer a practical framework for policymakers, educators and cultural mediators seeking to enhance policy success and promote linguistic justice.

1. Socio-lingual injustice frames the core of Language policy:

Over the past few decades, language policy and planning (hence, LPP) have evolved from an extension of applied linguistics in the early 1950s into a distinct academic discipline. Initial research within the field was primarily dedicated to resolving the linguistic challenges faced by newly independent post-colonial nations through the development of macro-level language policy frameworks. Later research influenced by the canons of critical theory started questioning these top-down apparatuses for not only ignoring the role of grassroots-level agents (i.e., people for whom the LPP was planned in the first place) in LPP processes but also for turning a blind eye to the socio-political and socio-economic contexts in which these languages were planned. The complex interplay between the human actors and structure makes LP a multi-layered instrument that fundamentally involves some form of engagement, planning and negotiation among the policy agents who act as arbitrators in situations where two or more languages are continuously being managed. Cooper (1989: 98) proposes an overarching question that further reveals the multidimensional nature of LP: “what actors attempt to influence what behaviours of which people for what ends under what conditions by what means through what decision-making process with what effect?” The answer to this provides a critical understanding of LPP as a profoundly political project (Nandi 2018) where various interest groups work to advance and defend competing language ideologies. This is evident from various top-down practices, such as institutional policymakers who only very rarely consult the minority language speakers directly while planning language or governmental policies that are frequently used as a resource to further the objectives of the ruling class (see Nandi et al. 2022, 2023). The case in point may be Africa’s mother-tongue education policies. These policies failed primarily because marginalised languages used in their respective education system were not socially, culturally, economically and politically empowered.

2. Mind the gap: From policy rhetoric to its implementation on the ground

Implementation of LP goals is frequently considered the weakest link within policy processes. The space between policy rhetoric and implementation of the same often leaves many policies ineffectual on the ground. For instance, institutional policymakers advocating the use of minority languages in education often lack the authority to reinforce them on the ground. To ensure the successful implementation of a top-down language policy at the operational level, policymakers must consider a complex set of supplementary factors. These factors include possessing a comprehensive understanding of the geopolitical context of implementation, such as the cultural norms of the community and the symbolic dominance of majority languages, securing adequate financial resources, establishing appropriate plans for completion and assessment, and ensuring the availability of trained personnel for execution. Crucially, the policy goals must be realistic and achievable as overly ambitious policies risk underperformance during execution. A salient example can be India's Three Language Formula (TLF). Introduced in 1968, the policy was intended to mediate language "conflicts" between Hindi-speaking and non-Hindi-speaking states by mandating space for Hindi, English, and a third Indian language. In practical terms, however, the TLF often results in the dominant state languages being promoted under the guise of mother-tongue education, while minority languages remain marginalised within the educational sphere. Consequently, the intergenerational transmission of these peripheral languages largely depends on various bottom-up interventions—including social workers, NGOs, teachers, parents, and other grassroots community endeavors—due to weak official "top-down" support.

When having an LP is just not enough: steps for strategic interventions

I advocate for a fundamental shift in how language policies are conceived and executed, moving away from centralised, rigid approaches to more dynamic, community-driven ones:

1. Adaptive, Equity-Focused, and Bottom-Up Planning Models

This recommendation directly addresses the failure points of misalignment and insufficient stakeholder consultation identified in your research.

·       Bottom-up planning: This model reverses the traditional top-down approach, where policies are created by central governments and passed down. Instead, it requires policymakers to start the design process by formally consulting with classroom instructors:

o   Local instructors as the primary stakeholders: They are aware of exactly which resources and training are missing for linguistic minorities.

o   Involvement of Community Leaders: as they provide crucial insights into actual language use, attitudes, and the feasibility of policy adoption, ensuring the policy reflects linguistic realities. This process will eventually address the misalignment between governmental goals and community realities.

·       Adaptive design: Language policies should be designed with built-in mechanisms for regular review and modification, rather than remaining static for decades. They must function as "living documents" that can be adjusted based on implementation data and feedback from the ground. This flexibility allows the policy to evolve alongside shifting demographics or technological changes.

·       Equity-centred implementation: This element mandates that policies explicitly account for historical disparities and actively provide targeted support to marginalised linguistic groups. This moves beyond mere compliance to ensure that resources (addressing inadequate resource allocation) are distributed to those who need them most to achieve equal educational outcomes, not just equal access.

2. Prioritising Continuous Evaluation

Such a critical perspective will address the sustained effort needed after a policy is implemented to prevent it from decaying due to a lack of relevance for its users.

·       Continuous Evaluation: Success should not be measured only by policy implementation (e.g., "new curriculum published"), but by measurable outcomes (e.g., "student literacy rates improved"). Evaluation should be continuous, utilising diverse metrics such as:

o   Longitudinal student performance: Tracking the academic performance of students from different linguistic backgrounds over time.

o   Audit of resource: Continuously monitoring the availability and effective use of teacher training, pedagogical resources, and funding for technological advancement.

o   Community surveys: Regularly assessing public perception of the policy's success and its social impact.

·       Leveraging on glocal expertise: This ensures that the policy's interpretation and execution are grounded in practical knowledge. Teachers and school administrators are experts in their specific contexts. Policies should:

o   Grant flexibility and adaptability: Allow local schools and educators the professional autonomy to adapt mandated materials using a global framework to fit local language use or cultural contexts without facing punitive measures.

o   Investing in local leadership: Establish formal roles and incentives for experienced, local teachers to lead professional development programs, making the training immediately relevant and peer-supported.

In essence, these recommendations pivot the policy framework from a system of command-and-control to one of collaboration, flexibility, and sustained localised investment.

References:

Howlett, M., & Mukherjee, I. (2017). ‘Policy formulation: Where knowledge meets power in the policy process’, in M. Howlett & I. Mukherjee (eds), Handbook of policy formulation, 3– 22. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Peled, Y. (2014). Normative language policy: interface and inferences, Language Policy, 13, 301–315.

Nandi, A. (2018), ‘Parents as stakeholders: Language management in urban Galician homes’, Multilingua, 37 (2): 201-23. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2017-0020  

Nandi, A.; Manterola, I.; Reyna-Muniain, F. and Kasares, P. (2022), ‘Effective family language policies and intergenerational transmission of minority languages: Parental language governance from autochthonous and diasporic contexts’, in M. Hornsby and W. Mcleod (eds.), Transmitting minority languages: Complementary reversing language shift strategies, 305-29, London: Palgrave. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87910-5_12  

Nandi, A.; Kasares, P., & Manterola, I. (2023), Countering government’s low-intensity language policies on the ground: family language policies in Castilian-Spanish dominated Galicia and Navarre, Critical Inquiry in Language Studies, 21(3), 354–378. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427587.2023.2247510