status planning
Define "status planning" in the context of language policy and planning and give two concrete examples of decisions that fall under status planning.
What is "corpus planning"? List three typical activities included within corpus planning.
Define "dialect planning" and explain how it differs from status and corpus planning.
Dialect planning = policy regarding varieties and their use (promotion, maintenance, selection). Differs by focus on intra‑language variation rather than language status or structure.
The text uses "linguistic policy (declarations of intention) and plans (application)". Give a concise definition of each term and explain their relationship.
Policy = declaration; plan = implementation. Relationship: plans operationalize policy aims.
Summarize why translation studies and minority language privileges are important in the concluding part of the text.
Translation ensures minority access; privileges protect use and transmission.
Identify and explain the four dimensions of language status referenced in the text. For each dimension, provide a short real‑world example (country or policy) that illustrates it.
Explain how corpus planning interacts with prestige planning and why corpus decisions can influence a language’s social reputation.
List four components of communication policy implementation discussed in the text (e.g., selection and training, syllabus policy). Choose two and explain their roles in dialect planning.
Components: selection & training, syllabus policy, resource planning, assessment policy. Selection/training chooses which forms to teach; syllabus policy structures content.
Explain what is meant by macro, meso, and micro levels of planning. Provide one policy example operating primarily at each level.
Macro = national language law; meso = regional school board policy; micro = classroom bilingual teaching practice.
Explain how translation policy can affect minority language access to public services and legal rights. Give one policy measure that improves access.
Without translation, minorities are excluded from services; measure: guaranteed free translation of essential services.
Discuss the potential tensions between political actors (e.g., party leaders) and research evidence in status planning decisions. Propose two mechanisms that could improve evidence‑informed status planning.
Compare the implications of adopting canonical (L1‑normative) materials versus locally authored materials in ELT curricula in postcolonial contexts. What corpus‑planning considerations should curriculum developers weigh?
Canonical L1 materials may misalign with learners’ contexts; local materials increase relevance but require capacity and quality control.
Evaluate the challenges a government might face when promoting a regional dialect as medium of instruction in secondary schools. Include considerations of resources, attitudes, and assessment.
Challenges: lack of materials, teacher proficiency, negative attitudes, examination mismatch.
The text refers to "false linguistic design" or (in)decisions. Define this concept and analyze its likely long‑term effects on language attitudes and educational outcomes.
In decisions lead to ambiguity, inconsistent practice, and eroded trust; long‑term effects include de facto language shift.
Discuss the relationship between translation practices and prestige planning. How can translation both reinforce and challenge dominant language prestige?
Translation can elevate minority texts (challenging prestige hierarchies) or entrench dominant norms (if translations favor dominant standards).
Analyze how early compulsory foreign language acquisition (e.g., introducing English in primary schools) functions as a status planning tool. Evaluate its likely sociolinguistic effects on minority languages in a multilingual nation.
Describe the primary scholarly bases mentioned for corpus planning (e.g., lexical growth, grammaticalisation). Choose one and explain how it would concretely guide the selection of teaching materials or orthographic reform.
grammaticalisation studies can guide which morphological distinctions to teach; orthography decisions can follow frequency/phonology evidence.
The text describes communication policy and planning as sometimes limited by slow information flows and small viewing publics. Explain what this means and propose two strategies to increase the reach and effectiveness of dialect planning interventions.
Slow information flows = poor dissemination; strategies: community media campaigns; teacher networks and digital resources.
Discuss the ethical considerations policymakers should address when language policies are implemented covertly (i.e., implied or secretive aims). Provide two safeguards that can increase transparency and protect minority language rights.
Ethical issues: covert agendas risk discrimination; safeguards: open consultation, legal review, mandatory impact statements.
Propose a policy for allocating translation resources in a multilingual state with limited budget. Prioritize criteria for which documents and services receive translation and justify your choices.
Prioritization: legal and health services first, education materials second, public information third; criteria: risk to life/rights, population affected, legal requirement.
Given a hypothetical country with three major languages (A, B, C) where A is the historical elite language, B is numerically dominant but low prestige, and C is an endangered indigenous language, design a status planning policy that balances communication needs, social justice, and language maintenance. Justify your prioritization and anticipated trade‑offs.
Sample policy should include official multilingual recognition, mother‑tongue early education for C, bilingual curricula for B and A, strong protections and funding for C revitalization; trade‑offs include resource allocation and possible resistance from elites.
Draft a brief corpus‑planning proposal for standardising orthography for a previously unwritten minority language, outlining steps for corpus collection, normalization, stakeholder consultation, and teacher training. Include potential pitfalls and mitigation strategies.
Key steps: corpus collection, corpus analysis, stakeholder consultation, orthography proposal, pilot, teacher training, materials production; pitfalls: elite capture, lack of community buy‑in, insufficient training.
Using an example from a real or simulated multilingual country, design an assessment policy that fairly measures students' proficiency across a regional dialect and the national standard language. Explain how the assessment supports both language maintenance and equitable access to education.
Assessment framework: balanced tasks in both varieties, scoring rubrics, moderation panels including community representatives, longitudinal tracking.
Critically appraise the claim that the field of LPP lacks a single widely accepted foundation. What methodological or theoretical pluralities contribute to this, and how might future research help consolidate or responsibly pluralize the field?
Reasons for lack of single foundation: interdisciplinarity, normative vs. descriptive aims, diverging methodologies; future research: comparative long‑term impact studies, interdisciplinary frameworks.
Draft a framework for evaluating whether a state's language and translation policies comply with international human rights norms concerning linguistic minorities. Include at least four evaluative criteria and suggested evidence sources.
Evaluation framework: legal recognition; availability of translated services; community participation; monitoring & redress mechanisms. Evidence: legislation, budgets, service logs, community surveys.