More than often, language has been considered as the most obvious form of human communication. This is because, the use of either oral, written or non-verbal - language in each and every society remain as the most refined and fundamental form of communication among individuals. In most cases, the use of language is wide as it fulfills a wide range of functions that are of high critical importance to both individual and social life (Tollefson 3). As a result, in all human ventures there exists a correlation between language as a tool used to negotiate, to articulate and create meaning of individual perception of experience in everybody's individual life. Considerably, language policy and education remain as instruments of language survival with more focus on cultivating language skills as it establishes the rights to use and maintain languages from extinction.
In most cases, the use of language is considered as a symbolic capital that lets education remain as a powerful means, which can be utilized in the provision of access to valued symbolic resources in the community. More so, education remains fundamental in shaping not only an individual’s personality but also contributing towards the development of his language competence (Kamwangamalu 240). As language policy remains, as a system that regulates measurement of language influence of the state it is widely associated with education as it makes it easier for language functioning on its territory. As a result, the linguistic role of education in language acquisition and survival is highly significant as it enhances the existence of multilingual environment even in cases where some minority languages are endangered from extinction. In order to achieve maximum utilization of language use in education, it is decisive to understand the different type of languages that play precise social roles to do away with the legal ambiguity in every society depending on the wide range of ethnic languages that are existent. More so, the languages used range from state language, the national language official language and minority languages (Maryns 245). Therefore, the use of these languages leads to micro interaction between students, educators, and communities as it either promotes the existence of collaborative relations of power or reinforcement of coercive relations of power.
More significantly, the use of language in education has been considered as the instrument used to enhance the creation of a sense of belonging as it gives a definition of an individual’s cultural and personal identity. Therefore, an analysis of language policy in linguistics remains as another important trend that is undertaken under sociolinguistic research in relation to education institutions towards language survival of endangered languages(Nunan & Carter 166). More so, the different aspects of sociolinguistic studies seek to carry out an analysis to investigate, evaluate and reflect the entire process of language planning and language policy formulation as it pertains to endangerment of the minority languages.
Even though, a wider use of vernacular language is not advocated for as a medium of instruction as a way of achieving uniformity, it is essential to assess the chances of success of language policies in linguistics without undertaking reference to different perspectives of belief systems, culture, and attitudes about language (Nunan & Carter 168). More significantly, the idea of advocacy for linguistic rights in the protection of endangered languages would remain as part of the central social culture as it gives individuals more fundamental rights such as educational equity. More so, the existing relationship between sociolinguistic research and institutional and community action towards maintenance of endangered languages encourage the processes of maintenance and revitalization of language policies that guide educational institutions to work towards attainment of language survival. Nevertheless, the formulation of language policies frameworks that are equitable and non-discriminative have come up with analysis of relation between the functional and structural characteristics of the existing endangered languages.
More significantly, the equitable use of the official languages in most countries is also related to the freedom to exercise language rights even though, the process of implementation and decision making of the language policy remains a challenge. As a way, of understanding the existence of language policy it is essential to always necessary for policy makers to focus on language policies as decision-making from language planning as implementation. As a result, the government officially through legislation, policy or court decisions formulates language policies as it determines how languages are used in different places especially in educational institutions and work place (García 30). More so, language policy formulation does involve several languages from individuals in different ethnic groups; therefore, is not necessarily determined on the national level. Nevertheless, the language policy allows the nation states to play a significant role in the exercise, and locus of power in language use, as a way of encouraging language survival of minority languages that are endangered.
In addition, operations within a specific speech community will constitute to language policy with consideration based on the existence of any political, social, religious group or even community (Fishman 330). Depending on the grounded ideological language choices, the language policy remain decentralized as it takes into account the interest of different speech communities. More so, formulation of language policy involves an unconcealed attempt that seeks to focus on attainment of language management. As language policies are formulated based on the principles that guide its success include its enhancement of multilingualism, language equity, good governance and nondiscrimination. As a result, a fair and just language policy allows for efficiency and efficacy in educational activities as it encourages language survival.
Through the development of multilingualism, language policy allows for the use of more than three languages by any group of speakers who remain as inhabitants of a region or nation. As a result, it allows for less use of many diverse languages that individuals are more conversant with because they can readily learn. Language policy formulation should also, enhance the existence of language equity by allowing for equitability in all languages as a way of ensuring uniformity. In addition, in the formulation of language policy nondiscrimination is advocated as it prevents the use of language as a means of executing, domination, exploitation and discrimination among diverse communities (Hornberger28). More so, language policy should focus on enhancing good governance as its formulation harnesses the use of official language that ensure advocacy for transparent accountable management based on language responsiveness to the needs of the residents. Nevertheless, language policy evaluation, monitoring and revision require regular assessment for changes to be effected when required to accommodate for changes that encourage the use of endangered languages.
More considerably, the use of language among individuals ensures that communications build relationships, as they express and understand personal intentions, emotions, and values as a way of building a strong socio-cultural, economic and political setting. More so, the use of languages allows individuals to confirm social relations as they transmit cultural and social expressions and practices. Therefore, languages should be revived from the distinction as it remains as a determining factor of cultural identity as used by diverse groups and individuals as it forms an inherent part of their lives. As a result, language will remain as an integral part of human beings existence as it advocates for interactions and understanding (Spolsky et al, 3). This is because, the use of either oral, written or non-verbal - language in each and every society remain as the most refined and fundamental form of communication among individuals. Therefore, the use of language is wide in every society as it fulfills a wide range of functions that are of high critical importance to both individual and social life.
In most cases, it is advocated that the main goal of any language policy should be focused on changing what would result in unstructured official language use that becomes more conversant for large community of speakers. Over the years, factors such as the active participation of interested parties, legislative changes, number of conferences and meetings and conferences and meetings held have influenced language shift away from endangered minority languages. Nonetheless, it is still significant that many countries that have a language policy have had its design to either favor or discourage the use of a particular set of language. Even though, many nations historically sought to advocate for language policies that promote one official language the extinction of other minor and indigenous languages has changed the structures of the policies (Katrijn 245). As a result, many countries that seek to protect and promote regional and ethnic languages have restructured the language policy formulation to be multilingual and protect such languages whose viability is threatened. In the end, most educational institutions use more than one language as a medium of instruction. More significantly, language policy that is well structured to enhance language survival, in each and every society allows for the use of many diverse languages, which individuals are more conversant with because they can readily learn.
In most instances, language planning and language policy remain as historically sensitive concepts that are used by interested policy makers as a means to exercise control through enhancement of uniform suppression amongst indigenous language groups. As a result, there has been a language shift towards the dominant language, as there exists a rampant increase in threatening not only identities of indigenous language speakers but also its vitality. As a way, of determining how languages are to be used by cultivating language skills formulation of language policies has to meet national priorities as it seeks to establish and maintain the rights of individuals who use and maintain all diversified major and minor languages (Hornberger 28). More significantly, there is a major concern among writers, scientists, defenders of linguistic human rights, artists, leaders of linguistic communities and politicians over the preservation of both the cultural and linguistic diversity of indigenous and other major languages in today’s world. As a result, the idea of advocacy for linguistic rights has become more paramount in the protection of endangered languages that would remain as part of the central social culture as it gives individuals more fundamental rights such as educational, economical, political and cultural equity.
Considerably, there are different factors that influence the existence and usage of any given human language. More so, in today’s world language survival of over half of the six thousand languages spoken in the world are on the dangerous verge of extinction. Considering the small size of native speaking population and failure to use such languages for formal communication there has been the drastic decline in the existence of minor languages. In addition, lack of increased socio-economic weight and good geographic dispersion of minority groups of native speakers have led to a short life span survival in minor languages (Kamwangamalu 240). As a result, an analysis of language policy in linguistics remains as another important trend that is undertaken under linguistic research as it seeks to protect endangered languages through educational institutions.
Nevertheless, the formulation of national language policies can be used to either mitigate or exacerbate the negative influences of some of the factors that interfere with language survival. More significantly, the different types of language policies and language policy framework choice influence the achievement of preset goals. More so, language policies formulated have to take into account the existence of constitutional provisions on multilingualism as it focuses on achievement of government goals that lead to economic, socio-political and educational growth (Kamwangamalu 242). Therefore, as language policy remains as a system that regulates measurement of language influence the establishment of uniform language that is widely accepted is widely associated with education as it makes it easier for language functioning on its territory. More so, it enhances the linguistic role of education in language acquisition as it remains significant in enhancement of the existence of multilingual environment even in cases where some minority languages are endangered from extinction as means of protection.
As a result, the language policy formulated is focused on restructuring of issues dealing with languages that had been previously discriminated against as it gives an equitable chance for marginalized official indigenous languages. In addition, the policy allows for uniformity in the official language used to facilitate equitable access to knowledge and information that deals with government services (Hornberger 30). On the other hand, language policies formulated should focus on enhancement of national unity, linguistic and cultural diversity as it focuses on heartening the learning, as well as use of other official indigenous languages. Additionally, the language policy should be able to initiate and sustain as it advocates for a vibrant discourse on multilingualism with all language communities taken into consideration. Finally, the language policies formulated should ensure that it promote a good language management as this ensures that there is proficient administration of public service to meet client needs, as well as expectations.
Even as, language remain as a fundamental aspect in the progress of human communities, the use of language especially as a fundamental towards education development remains significant. Nevertheless, for education to be equally administered, it is necessary for learning institutions to use languages that all the learners are more conversant with, as it gives more beneficial output. Even so, it has been accredited that particular learners who receive their teaching instruction in their mother-tongue language, have a higher opportunity of attaining competence in all subjects that relate with different fields of learning that include the acquisition of additional languages.
More fundamentally, it remains decisive for all the decisions that policy makers undertake with regard to language-in-education policy should always take into consideration the wishes and attitudes of interested parties including parents, teachers and students about the choice of the official language (Ferguson 80). This is because, it remains obvious that, students in schools remain as an integral part of learning and teaching process and the choice of language used will affect the overall learning process. More so, the students are influenced by the language-in-education policy adopted because they are the ones who undertake day-to-day classes as it influences the way they view the adoption of new language learning.
Even though, the students remain as the interested parties who have an insider view of what is going on in the adopted education system, it is unfortunate because their perceptions of what they observe and experience are of little or no influence in the formulation of language-in-education policy. Nevertheless, recent modern research indicates that maintenance of a high level of sound foundation in the mother tongue ensures that learning of additional languages becomes an easier task. In addition, it is also recommended that students should understand their first language because it supports the intuition that children because they cannot learn through a language that they do not know because the fail to catch up and become extremely disadvantaged. In most instances, the use of English as the international language of communication has become a known fact especially in science and business as it remains as the most preferred language mode of communication. As a result, English remain as the main medium of teaching, learning and assessment universally in most educational programs in different subjects taught in school with the exception of language and literature subjects that enhance the acquisition of other languages studied (Hornberger 28).
With most languages being, non recognized officially and lack formal writings on it, there exists a potential and actual impact based on the importance of language policy to focus on advocacy of language survival of endangered languages. More considerably, there exists complication based on the lack of uncomplicated causal connections that exist between types of policy, language maintenance and shift, besides policy and planning (Ferguson 79). As a result, language policy does not remain as an autonomous factor, as it appears to lead to different outcomes, as it depends on the situation in, which it operates in the educational system. Nevertheless, existence of weak linkages between language policy and planning render policies formulated to govern language use ineffective. As a result, approval of the use of marginal languages in learning brings out lack of power to reinforce the formulated language policy.
On the other hand, the adherence of the language policies towards the principles of non-discrimination and equity among different ethnic languages attains negligible impact on home use. As a result, policies should advocate for essential commitment towards the continued natural transmission of endangered languages. Even though, language survival cannot depend on legislation it has the power to offer support, based on legal provisions because it may allow speakers of endangered languages to always claim for allowance for some public space based on their languages and cultures (Barry 67). Nevertheless, as all nations undertake formulation of language policy focus should be on the promotion and support for languages that are to be sanctioned for use in education, while marginalizing other languages that have been denied the same public space because they are considered minor languages.
More considerably, advocacy on language equality is based on the fact that each person has the right in the society to use language and to participate freely in the cultural life depending on an individual choice. In most countries, it remains widely recognized that, everyone has the right to either receive education at the primary, tertiary, secondary as well as higher level either in the official language or languages depending on an individual’s choice in public educational institutions as acquisition of different levels of education remain reasonably practicable. Therefore, language educational policy will ensure access towards implementation of individual right, as the state through the policy makers considers all reasonable educational alternatives depending on the medium institutions (Foley 265).
In conclusion, language policy and education as instruments of maintaining language survival should advocate for equity among individuals from different ethical backgrounds. More so, equity of language policy advocates for the quality education that is considered equal, fair, impartial, and allows for even-handed dealing of what is fair and right. Language policy should advocate for language that is practicable because it should be understood as the sole medium of instruction. As a result, the policy makers should allow for all interested parties from different communities to participate in language development through the promotion of people’s attitudes towards the use of advocated language.
Works Cited
Barry, Brian. Culture and equality: an egalitarian critique of multiculturalism. Cambridge,
Mass:
Harvard University Press, 2002.
Ferguson, Gibson. Language planning and education. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press,
2006.
Fishman, Joshua. 1997. Language and ethnicity: The view from within. In F Coulmas, ed.
Handbook of Sociolinguistics: 327-343.
Foley, Joseph. Language, education, and discourse : functional approaches. London New York:
Continuum, 2005.
Hornberger, Nancy. 2006. Frameworks and models in language policy and planning. An
Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method, NJ, Blackwell.
Kamwangamalu, Nkonko. 1997. Multilingualism and Education Policy in Post-Apartheid
South Africa. Language Problems & Language Planning 21:3, 234-253.
Maryns, Katrijn. 2004. Identifying the asylum speaker: Reflections on the pitfalls of language
analysis in the determination of national origin. International Journal of Speech,
Language and the Law 11(2): 240-260.
Nunan, David and Carter, Ronald. The Cambridge guide to teaching English to speakers of
other
languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Ofelia, García. Bilingual Education in the 21st Century a Global Perspective. Hoboken: John
Wiley & Sons, 2011.
Spolsky, Bernard, Leon, Robert Elana, Cooper, Shohamy, Goldberg and Walters, Joel. New
perspectives and issues in educational language policy : a festschrift for Bernard Dov
Spolsky. Amsterdam Philadelphia: J. Benjamins Pub. Co, 2001.
Tollefson, James. Language policies in education: critical issues. Mahwah, N.J: Erlbaum, 2002.
