I've recently discovered the journal Language Problems & Language Planning - and, by "recently", I mean I noticed it sitting on our shelves ages ago but I have finally taken the time to see what kind of articles are inside it.
It's a highly interesting journal that is dedicated to the decisions people make about languages.
The stuff that comes out of our mouths on a day to day basis is reasonably free of official decisions (some would argue it is reasonably free of decisions, full stop), but there are a lot of official decisions to be made about the language we use in governments, schools and courts - not to mention the languages that need official support to survive.
China is trying to build an "improved" standard writing system. The Dutch spelling system is apparently doomed to eternal conflict. Cornish is trying to come back from the dead. French Canadians are trying to make sure they can continue to have their own schools. Minority languages all over the world are trying to gain recognition and support. Esperanto is just plain interesting - and still kind of almost trying to change the world (but only subtly - much like Fabian Socialism*).
Multilingualism, bilingual education, multiculturalism and heritage languages that won't just lay down and die...
I have a habit of thinking about languages in terms of grammar and vocabulary (and sometimes philology and literature) - but the history and politics of languages can be incredibly fascinating, and that's what LPLP takes as its focus.
Some of the issues I've mentioned above might be a little less than topical. For some reason I've started reading through the journal beginning with Volume 20 - from 1996. I went to that volume to find an article referenced in a more current issue... and ended up staying for a while.
I'm finding the language climate of the late 1990s quite fascinating at the moment. I've just finished reading a 1997 article on the kerfuffle over the 1994 attempted spelling reforms for Dutch. Dirk Jacobs points out that the biggest problem with fixing spelling is the fact that professional writers (journalists, authors, etc) have a large stake in the issue and more clout in the public sphere than linguists can muster. He concludes that spelling reform will only be able to happen if you get the journalists on-side first (and doubts that will be an easy thing to do).
I've had a few ideas challenged since I starting reading this journal. One of the more recent articles, by Sabine Fiedler, drew my attention to the unquestioning respect we have for native speakers, and raised the point that a native speaker isn't necessarily the be-all and end-all of a language. That was an eye-opener.
It's a fascinating journal - and taking me on a fascinating journey. I wonder if I'll keep travelling through the 1990s and 2000s. I wonder what I'll learn along the way...
*-What do we want?
-Gradual change!
-When do we want it?
-In due course!
