The 1970s have ushered in a new phase in approaches to language planning; the preference for a less provocative term such as language policy is indicative of this. There is now a decline in the use of terms such as language planning and language engineering: this is as it should be. For almost tow decades, language planning was presented as a cure-all for culturally and lingustically pluralistic societies in the developing Asian, African, and other non-Western countries. The term was overused, and its applications exaggerated. But this enthusiasm was not shared by all; serious practitioners were conscious of the limitations of the claims and the complexities of the task. This changed attitude has naturally contributed to a reassessment and re-evaluation of these earlier claims. There is now a much better understanding of the linguistic, political, sociological, and attitudinal constraints on language policy formation. The availability of greater cross-linguistic empirical data makes comparative observations more meaningful. As a consequence, the term language planning is now used with caution, with restricted generalization, and with an appreciation of the complexity of each situation. It has rightly been recognized that the task is more complex than linguists can handle within the traditionally conceived boundaries of their discipline, for example, in the work of the venerable Einar Haugen, or more recently, in the work of Charles Ferguson, Joshua Fishman, and others.

This is an overview of studies concerning the linguistic situation of Eastern Africa in reference to the inter-relationships among the various Languages and their extent, as well as to both official and informal patterns of usage. The three which make up what is traditionally called East Africa--Tanzania, Kenya, and Uganda--receive more detailed attention.

Because there is a separate section in this volume devoted to the language in education policy, little attention has been focused here on education. Nevertheless, many of the issues raised in such a general coverage of language policy must inevitably have implications for education even though they are not taken up here.

This review has as its major scope language policy as it has been practied in the province of Taiwan of the Republic of China (ROC). Language policies of the nation from 1911 to 1949 (i.e., from the establishment of the republic in the Mainland to the time when the central goverment of the ROC moved to Taiwan) will also be reviewed as they bear significantly upon the current policies. The reason for this is quite obvious, since the current policies are the result of a continuous evolution of policies in the past. In the following sections three areas will be presented: 1) a brief sociolinguistic profile of the major and minority languages in the ROC; 2) the functional allocation of languages; 3) the language policies as actually practiced today.

The major local (Austronesian) languages of the Philippines are Cebuano, Tagalog (the basis of pilipino), Ilocano, Hiligaynon, Bicol, Waray (Samber-Leyte), Kapampangan, and Pangasinan (rank ordered according to the number of first-language speakers). Earlier, any language which had at least 500,000 first-language speakers was considered a major language; with the growth in population, this number has been pushed to 1,000,000. All but Pangasinan, which has about 950,000 first-language speakers, have over a million first-language speakers based on the 1975 census. (A census was taken in 1980 and preliminary reports have been released; however, a breakdown according to language speakers is not yet available.)

In the political divisions within South Asia there has traditionally been no organized effort for language policies.1 Language was essentially related to one's caste, village, district, and state. Beyond this, one identified with languages associated with religion (Sanskrit or Arabic), or learned and literary texts (mainly Sanskrit and Persian). At the time of Indian independence (1947), one task of the new government was to unravel the status and position of almost 560 sovereign states which were ruled by an array of mahārājās, nawābs, and lesser luminaries, depending on the size and the revenue of each state and subdivision. Each state state was a kindgom unto itself, and such political divisions did not foster a national language policy. In India, the largest country in South Asia, four languages were used for wider communication as bazār languages or languages of literature and intranational communication: Hindi (and its varieties, Hindustani and Urdu), Sanskrit, Persian, and later, English (cf., for Sanskrit, Kachru and Sridhar 1978; Sharma 1976; for English, Kachru 1969; 1982a). The Hindus tended to send their children to a pāṭhśālā (traditional Hindu school mainly for scriptural education) for the study of the scriptures and some basic knowledge of the śāastras (Sanskrit instructional texts, treatise), and the Muslims tended to send their children to a maktab (traditional school for Koranic instruction). The denominational schools (vidyāZaya) provided liberal arts instruction in Sanskrit, Persian, Hindi, Arabic, or in the regional languages.

The development of a literature on language policy, plannaing, and politics in the U.S. is taking place quickly. Possibly the most difficult job for a researcher is placing the legal and official statements about language within a social, bureaucratic, and jurisdictional context that allows reasonable interpretation. There is as yet no comprehensive framework, compendium of law and other policies, or general research work on the topic. There is much more available and accessible data and research today, however, that could provide the basis for such work in the near future In the next three years, the federal government will consider reauthorizing the Bilingual Education Act, the Language Minority Provision of the Voting Rights Act, and the Court Interpreters Act. These legislative debates, and others, will surely fan the fires of language policy considerations, continue the polemics over the cultural bases of the country, including the role of language minorities, and stimulate greater language policy and planning research and interest in the U.S.

Such are the vicissitudes of economics, politics, and Acts of God, that the provision of appropriate schooling for disparate refugee or migrant populations presents an enduring challenge for educators and policy–makers. The challenge is not a new one in that large scale migrations of people have been taking place since the earliest times in recorded history. However, it is heightened in today's world by our recongnition of the critical role which formal education plays in determining an individual's capacity to benefit from and to contribue to the society in which he lives. Such are the vicissitudes of economics, politics, and Acts of God, that the provision of appropriate schooling for disparate refugee or migrant populations presents an enduring challenge for educators and policy–makers. The challenge is not a new one in that large scale migrations of people have been taking place since the earliest times in recorded history. However, it is heightened in today's world by our recongnition of the critical role which formal education plays in determining an individual's capacity to benefit from and to contribue to the society in which he lives. This is as true for Third World countries as it is for modern industrialized ones. Given that educational achievement is a fundamental determinant of social and occupational mobility, it makes sense for the State to do whatever possible to ensure that migrants are provided every opportunity to become fully participating members of society rather than remaining marginal or disfunctional.

This short paper presents a background to the debate about bilingual education in England, an outline of the work of the Linguistic Minorities Project, and a selection of recent research and publications in this area.

In England the issue of bilingual education and mother-tongue teaching has emerged quite recently as the result of several developments. Firstly, it is seen to be a logical extension of “multi–cultural” education for all children, a movement that has developed among progressive educationalists to ensure that the education system reflects the multi–cultural nature of British society. Secondly, there has been increasing pressure from many minority groups for the introduction of lessons in the minority languages as part of the regular school system. Thirdly, the European Community Directive on the education of children of migrant workers has stimulated greater debate and activity in this field (Saifullah Khan 1980a).

Although language differences may exist within a nation, these differences do not become issues of national concern until the government passes legislation to choose one language over others for the purpose of unifying the nation under one linguistic symbol.

The greater bulk of the task of implementing language policies is assigned to the schools for several reasons. First, the schools are one of the most potent instruments for developing and propagating a language. Second, the government has control over the schools. Third, the students are the most teachable segments of the population. Fourth, education is a verbal task; therefore, in order to carry out the education function, the schools have to take an active interest in language.

The conflict between traditional and Western values is the key to understanding official language policies as well as popular attitudes regarding language in the Arab world. Traditional values are associated with the Arabic language and Islam, the two major pillars of Arab nationalism. Western values represent colonialism and oppression on the one hand and modernity and technology on the other. The issues dominating language policy in the period following World War II, during which most Arab countries became independent, are treated by Altoma (1970). Since many of these issues continue to be the subject of discussion, I will limit my coverage to the literature which appeared since 1970.

A large literature exists on educational technology (instructional methods, materials, and facilities) and language minorities. Language policies--which guide the objectives and use of this technology--are explicit in some areas, like bilinguage policy. There are educational juris-dictions with responsibilities over teaching and learning. Foreign language policies are advocated more than officially recognized, yet the issue is very visible. The role of billingual education in generating language issues for discussion, debate, and policy making can be seen in its impact on other language related areas, such as foreign language instruction, desegregation policies, civil right, promotion of new innovative educational technologies (e.g., language proficiency assessment), TESOL, special education, inter-governmental relations (with Indian peoples, Puerto Rico, and the territories), and, indirectly, as it relates to instruction of Black vernacular English speakers, and instruction of the deaf. It is the (re-)opening of these language issues as they affect a cross section of the U.S. citizenry that is little recognized and, yet, profoundly important. Language permeates social relations, and so is the object of informal, if not formal, policies and norms most notably where there are groups in language contact, but also when language variation is a basis for social differentiation. That many of the works identified here do not deal with these relationships and differentions as they reflect the distribution of power on our society only idicates the youth of a slowly maturing educational language policy, planning, and politics literature.

All of the papers in this section have a great deal more to say about the teaching of English to non-native speakers than about literacy, which is discussed primarily within the context of teaching regional languages in multilingual societies. Two contexts are represented in the discussions of English teaching: either English functions as the dominant language in the society, or it is one of the major languages in a multilingual society.

In the area of Eastern Africa, the question of language teaching and literacy has not fully discussed as part of one cogent theme. Such works as have appeared on these subjects have been concerned with specific problems, such as literacy and development (e.g., Government of the Republic of Zambia 1975; Kassam 1978; Lamba 1973; Mwanakatwe and Nyirenda 1972; Nyerere 1976); the problems associated with teaching specific languages (Bagunywa 1970; Gorman 1974; ohannessian and Kashoki 1978; Sifuna 1975), or general educational policy with passing references to languages in education (Africa 1980; Fawcett 1970; Gorman 1970; 1971a; 1974; Mutua 1975; Stabler 1969).

Language teaching in New Zealand as it relates to the theme of this volume, the movement of people across national boundaries, has had two main directions. The first, arising from the nineteenth century British colonization of tribal Maori society with the subsequent ceding of the land to the British crown, focused on the language education of the indigenous Maori people primarily through the schooling of children. In the 1980's almost all Maoris speak English and a minority are actively bilingual. Language teaching in New Zealand as it relates to the theme of this volume, the movement of people across national boundaries, has had two main directions. The first, arising from the nineteenth century British colonization of tribal Maori society with the subsequent ceding of the land to the British crown, focused on the language education of the indigenous Maori people primarily through the schooling of children. In the 1980's almost all Maoris speak English and a minority are actively bilingual. The second direction, occurring particularly over the last decade or so, has focused on the English language education of immigrants speaking English as a second language and coming as adults or children to a largely English speaking country. This review deals particularly with these two major directions in language teaching and does not, therefore, cover the teaching of foreign languages such as French or German as academic subjects in New Zealand.

In keeping with the general theme of this section of ARAL II, this paper discusses language teaching and the implemetation of bilingualism in the educational system of the Philippines. Space limitations do not permit a treatment of the teaching of both pilipino and English, so the focus is on the latter for the first part of this discussion.

The complexity of South Asian multilingualism, the functional allocation of roles, and the policies governing the use of languages in spheres such as education, administration, and others have been discussed in Kachru's contribution to the present volume. The following discussion of the problems and research in language teaching and literacy should be read in that context.

Language teaching in the United States has always occurred in two distinctly different environments, as indeed it has in many other countries. In the 20th century in this country, most scholarly attention has been focused on only one of these environments while the other has received scant attention though it has continued to exist. The environment receiving most attention has been the the formal academic environment--that language teaching which occurs in schools, particularly in public schools at the elementary and secondary levels and in accredited institutions at the tertiary level. But there has also been a strong tradition of language teaching in other settings; language has been taught in special school-like environments outside of regular school hours and regular school curricula by ethnic communities and religious organizations, and it has also been taught informally by community groups in less-formal adult-education structures and even in industrial settings. As the result of recent influxes of refugees, particularly from Southeast Asia, a variety of long-standing informal mechanisms have begun to receive greater attention. This article will consider both kinds of language teaching--those in academic settings and those in the less-formal settings.

The present papers provide an instructive perspective on the emergence of the discipline of “applied linguistics.” First, and foremost, there is an underlying assumption that language is an important thread which runs, albeit often implicitly, through a variety of issues which are fundamental to national development and to public life (cf., Alatis & Tucker 1979). Second, there is an assumption that educational practices can be improved and social equity can be facilitated by applying knowledge gleaned from research conducted within the domain of the language sciences. Third, there is the assumption that scholars in diverse national settings want to become involved in improving access to opportunity--social, occupational or educational--in their own home settings. Fourth, there is an assumption that collaborative research is desirable, indeed increasingly necessary; and that the “Applied” Linguist may play a prominent role in helping to eliminate artificial disciplinary boundaries among anthropologists, educators, psychologists, sociologists, and others who are eager to utilize insights and data from research in the language sciences to ameliorate social and economic problems. Fifth, there is the assumption that the authors of the papers in this volume are investigating a common set of issues which despite their own geographical diversity, ethnolinguistic diversity, and disciplinary diversity can be better understood by examining the cumulative results of crossdisciplinary and cross-cultural research.