Although the Channel Islands have been united politically with Great Britain since 1204, each of the four largest islands, Jersey, Guernsey, Sark and Alderney, feature Norman dialects, known locally as Jèrriais, Guernésiais, Sercquiais and Aurignais. For many centuries, these were the main everyday languages of most islanders, and Jèrriais and Guernésiais enjoy a literary tradition dating back to the nineteenth century. Owing to the spread of English throughout the archipelago during the twentieth century in particular, the dialects have all suffered a sharp decline in speaker numbers, with the Norman of Alderney now extinct. The insular varieties are not homogeneous and the linguistic consequences, both lexical and structural, of the extensive language contact between English and the three surviving dialects have served to further differentiate insular Norman from the Norman varieties spoken in mainland Normandy. The realisation that insular Norman is declining rapidly in terms of speaker numbers has prompted the establishment of local language planning measures, currently more established in Jersey than on the other islands.

This chapter discusses how Carnap’s philosophy of language affects his position on language planning issues. Carnap was an Esperantist from an early age, and he kept his interest for international auxiliary languages active throughout his life. In his Intellectual Autobiography, he clearly mentions the relation between his activity of building symbol systems as a logician and his interest for language planning for international communication. His controversy with Wittgenstein regarding Esperanto illustrates two opposing views of language, one as a functional device for various purposes and one as a carrier of tradition and identity. Carnap’s dismissal of the latter is rooted both in his principle of tolerance (and its underlying instrumentalism) and in logical empiricism’s attack on metaphysical concepts such as Volksgeist, shared by other language planners who emphasized the instrumental purpose of language and supported locutors’ active intervention in it either by language reform or by language construction. We argue that the antimetaphysical rejection of the romanticist view of language, sustained by Vienna Circle, led to a more liberal and flexible attitude toward language planning issues. Finally, the internationalism of logical empiricists was effective in shaping their favourable disposition towards international auxiliary languages.

With a view to highlighting the importance of archival and less well-known primary sources for our understanding of Rudolf Carnap’s philosophy, this chapter investigates several examples of concrete influences on his thinking, from nineteenth-century Herbartianism and empiriocriticism, the German Youth Movement, Bauhaus modernism and the revolution from the right, toward the Vienna Circle and post-WWII analytic philosophy. These examples demonstrate that Carnap’s philosophy had always been shaped by practical motives; he developed a philosophical stance that is directed at the reality of life and integrates cognitive as well as non-cognitive elements. This meta-philosophical view that carefully investigates the borders between the scientifically comprehensible (viz., the cognitive) and those aspects of reasoning that merely comprise personal attitudes (viz. the noncognitive) developed through various stages, from the "scientific world-conception" and antimetaphysics of the Vienna Circle toward Carnap’s mature views on inductive logic and human decision-making. The upshot is that noncognitivism as being understood by Carnap and his philosophical allies rather than denouncing value statements as arbitrary and irrational embeds them into a rational scientific discourse, to maximize rationality in connection with moral and political decision making.

In Chapter 6 the same approach to evidence gathering is adopted in the context of the Spanish polity by focussing on two of the 17 Autonomous Communities, namely the Basque Country and Navarre. It is here that the new speaker concept has been most readily welcomed and has entered into official discourse. Accordingly, we may expect to find examples of good practice which should be applicable in other jurisdictions. Detailed consideration is given to such excellent initiatives as the Euskaraldia: 11 Days in Euskera campaign in the Basque Autonomous Community. Here civil society activists and local agencies are far more inclined to argue that the needs of new speakers should be an integral element of official language policy than were those charged with the formulation and implementation of such policies at the national level. The chapter explores to what extent this official reticence is a result of ideological stances, a caution as to the costs involved or a conviction that current policies already cater very well for the needs of new speakers, even if they are not described in those terms.

Institutions play an important role in the management of multilingualism and can have a defining impact on language use. By granting more or less official status to certain forms of expression and language varieties, institutions legitimize some forms and varieties as more desirable targets of linguistic accommodation than others, which can affect speakers’ dominant language environments and influence the selection process of language change. This chapter outlines a socio-political approach to language standardization and interprets selected language policy and planning measures in terms of common mechanisms and outcomes of language contact in three western European states: France, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Using the same historical timeline, it proposes a comparison of the circumstances under which national identities emerged in early modern and modern times, state boundaries were expanded through conquest, and more or less cultural homogeneity was achieved and enforced through language use. It is argued that even though ethnolinguistic diversity decreased considerably over time, different institutional responses to multilingualism led to different state-specific compromises that continue to shape language policies and planning in each of the three states today.

The sociolinguistic situation of the Channel Islands has meant that English has been spoken there alongside the native language, Norman, for several centuries, albeit in a diglossic relationship, with English assuming “High” functions (administration, legislation, education, media, and so forth) and Norman “Low” functions (familiar discourse with family and friends). The fact that, today, all speakers of the three extant varieties of Insular Norman (Jèrriais, Guernesiais, and Sercquiais) are also fluent in English has had far-reaching linguistic consequences in that the Norman spoken in the Channel Islands has diverged from the varieties spoken on the French mainland, and distinctive local varieties of Channel Island English have developed. Based on original data, this chapter provides an overview of the sociolinguistic setting that gave rise to this language contact and discusses some representative examples of contact-induced influence in the lexis, phonology, and morphosyntax of both Channel Island Norman and Channel Island English.

The story of Viktorija Ceginskas is a story of interactions between different ethnicities, cultures, and languages on the borders of the Baltic States. She shows how stateless refugees may compensate for their loss of identity by strong emotional bonds with families, native countries, and languages. She shows how "language use and practices help to determine a person’s self- and externally ascribed identification by others, and provide orientation in everyday social interactions, including the recognition as a valid and represented group member with specific rights.”

Laurent Gajo offers a Swiss perspective from a mixed Italo-French family in a time when only men could transmit their nationality. Very soon convinced he was more than two passports, his research led him to education and specifically to the conceptualization of plurilingualism and the "didactization of alternation" that could respond to the complexity of classrooms.

Tackling a knotty but crucial issue, Hussein Elkhafaifi examines deep-seated and protracted challenges of language planning in the Arab world. The long legacy of variation and language shift in spoken Arabic has led not only to the evolution of fixed boundaries between vernacular and written Arabic, but also to vigorous attempts to monitor, control, and update the written language, especially its lexical resources. Academies dedicated to strengthening and extending the lexicon of Modern Standard Arabic have existed for a century or more in several Arab countries, but have faced problems in dealing with modernization and expansion, challenged not only by the vigorous thriving of vernacular Arabic, but also by competition from Western languages such as English and French, especially in higher education, where wholesale borrowing of terms seems to continue unabated.

Standardization is the selection of one variant among others. It may concern any aspect of language use – pronunciation, orthography, morphology, syntax, the lexicon – and can occur within any social group, from the family to international organizations. Language policy is a conscious choice regarding a language or a linguistic feature. Such a choice, made by some social authority, is then implemented through language policy. State intervention may depend on calls for efficiency or calls for equality. Each policy and each plan for implementation is situated within a specific historical context. We trace two national histories often represented as being at opposite ends of the spectrum: the centralized power of the state in France and the decentralized power distributed to states and smaller governmental units in the USA. There are as many histories as there are languages and language varieties.

This chapter addresses issues related to sign language standardization, a topic that has been approached from many different perspectives. To some members of the Deaf communities, language standardization represents a form of outsider oppression meant to ‘fill in gaps’ with the establishment of a ‘standard’ sign language that is ‘more consistent’. In this sense, there is a resistance in some Deaf communities against dictionaries or glossaries proposed for educational purposes or for teaching sign language. On the other hand, others in the Deaf communities discuss how to standardize their language(s) considering different motivations that are more inclusive, such as the recognition of the diverse varieties of a sign language and how to deal with them. These points are discussed considering the complex factors that are involved in the tentative language standardization processes of sign languages in many different countries. We present and discuss the different experiences and motivations of various language planning projects that include proposals of sign language standardization. We conclude that a successful language standardization process needs to include Deaf professionals as the protagonists.

Pidgins and creoles are typically depicted as involving an unusually high degree of variation. This is also often taken to be indicative of a lack of proper grammatical structuring and language-hood. Variation is presented as an obstacle to standardization and for exclusion from official domains, particularly formal education. For speakers, creoles represent the ‘voice of truth’, convey belonging and are often the main means of communication. Pidgins and creoles were eventually allowed into formal contexts due to pragmatic considerations such as for proselyting and for the mitigation of educational problems rather than identity-based considerations. This has acted as an important catalyst for their wider recognition. Discussions about how to deal with variation continue to hamper processes of standardization and implementation, however. This chapter reviews approaches to and issues in the standardization of creoles and discusses the ongoing standardization of Nenge(e) (Eastern Maroon Creoles) in French Guiana. It is argued that variation is integral to all languages and can be accommodated once pluricentric norms and wider notions of literacy are adopted. Careful attention to language ideologies, including views about variation, are crucial for successful acceptance and use of the outcomes of standardization.

Language standardization ‘from above’ occurs in situations in which language authorities seek to disseminate a standardized variety across a speech and writing community. Hence, the crucial aspect of language standardization ‘from above’ is implementation, in Haugen’s terminology. In the history of many European languages, standardization ‘from above’ is a Late Modern phenomenon, closely tied to the rise of standard language ideology in the eighteenth century. In this chapter, we first define language standardization ‘from above’, situating it in the sociohistorical context of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Arguing that the sociolinguistic situation at the time can be described as diaglossic, we claim that language standardization ‘from above’ is a top-down effort to reorganize the sociolinguistic condition in terms of standard and non-standard. We then discuss various instruments of implementation, encompassing both private and official language planning activities such as usage guides, language academies, professorships in ‘national’ languages, language laws and educational reforms. Finally, we zoom in on the effects of implementation, distinguishing between discursive and linguistic effects (i.e. changing patterns of language use under the influence of standardization ‘from above’). Our examples are mainly taken from the Dutch situation, while also incorporating examples from English, German, French and Spanish.

A significant proportion of the threatened idioms of the world are small, pre-literate languages spoken by communities encapsulated within modern ‘developed’ countries (e.g. Canada, the USA, Australia and New Zealand) whose dominant population uses a European competitor language of great prestige and wide currency. This acute asymmetry has been referred to by some Canadian indigenous leaders as characterizing the ‘Fourth World’ languages. Growing concern about the future of these languages has led to a focus on developing indigenous language literacy to prevent or even to reverse their loss. Focusing on the ‘standardization’ of the Innu language spoken in Quebec (Canada), this case study addresses the issue of whether standardization can actually foster literacy in the indigenous language and curtail (or even reverse) shift to the dominant language. The chapter discusses the process of orthographic standardization among the Innus as it unfolded in the past fifty years. It compares it with similar contexts across the world. A growing consensus emerges that standardization and literacy skills in indigenous languages cannot prevent language loss, and it is doubtful that it can foster the revitalization of the receding language.

Any community involved in revitalization work will benefit from having a strategic language plan in place, with clearly identified short and long term goals. Ideally, projects are a carefully planned set of activities within a specific time frame and with well-defined outcomes. This chapter sets out a series of steps, beginning from the “good idea” and progressing through assessing the needs that a project will address, outlining the project and relating its intended outcomes to the broader strategic needs and goals of the community. It then covers specific details that need to be addressed in planning, such as resources, audience, budget, funding, timeline and other matters, before moving on to implementation, contingency plans and evaluation. The capsule provides a set of tips on how to maximize use of emotional resources and minimize use of money, emphasizing how much can be achieved through positive attitudes and commitment, even without financial resources.

Nation-states are key players in the design and implementation of language policy. Language communities can rarely fully decide the future of their language, but they often have their own strategies to revive and strengthen their language. This chapter defines top-down and bottom up language policies, exemplifying how they may be implemented in different types of language planning (corpus, status, prestige and acquisition planning). It identifies issues that may arise in dealing with policy makers. Language rights are supported by various international legal instruments (such as the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages and the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights) and activists may refer to these for support, although appeals to such charters have rarely been successful in law. The capsule presents the Mexican Indigenous Language Promotion and Advocacy project (MILPA), a model of community-based language maintenance and advocacy work creating programs that foster language maintenance, multi-literacy, social justice, and Indígena pride.

Chapter 9 focuses on the variation found within a language or a speech community, which is at the core of sociolinguistics. In this respect, it differs from chapters that focus on structure and the regularities and invariable properties of language. Basic concepts such as linguistic variables and variants are described and illustrated through examples related to the lexicon, phonology, and syntax. Readers learn about the possible constraints, some of which are structural, that limit the possibility of variation. The chapter then explores the difference between standard and non-standard speech varieties and to recognize that the difference between the two often is not based on any linguistic properties but rather on societal attitudes. It considers social factors that may determine the use of variants, including region, socioeconomic status gender and age. The chapter also examines individual factors such a register. It examines the roles of language planning in different societies. Finally, it focuses on the variation found in bilinguals, including code switching, and the emerging languages such as pidgins and creoles.

This chapter argues that disciplining of bilingual education as a scholarly field served to divorce discussions of bilingual education from broader political and economic struggles in favor of the seemingly objective pursuit of the benefits of bilingual education. This disciplining of bilingual education was part of a larger discursive shift that reframed discussions of racial inequality from a focus on unequal access and the need for structural change to a focus on the deficiencies of racialized communities and the need for modifying these deficiencies. The chapter ends with a call for bilingual education scholars to situate issues of language inequality within the broader white supremacist and capitalist relations of power. This will offer bilingual education scholars tools for rejecting deficit perspectives of language-minoritized children and pointing to the broader racial stratification that makes these deficit perspectives possible to begin with.