Actors and Agency in Multilingual Education Policy and Planning: A Case Study in a Chinese University

Main Article Content

Zhang Ying

Abstract

Although there has been a not quite short history of language policy and planning, the attention is more paid to the macro-level policy and planning of the national government. However, recent studies have begun to move the eyes to the individual actors in the local context, thus the meso- and micro-level implementation of language policy and planning become the new topic in this field. This study adopts the new framework to analyze the individual actors’ agency in the process of implementing the macro-level multilingual education policy and planning of learning languages other than English (LOTEs). In response to the macro-level language policy and planning shifting, the individual actors conduct agentive or constrained actions to propel or impede the procedure of macro-level language policy and planning. The findings of this study highlight the importance of constructing the dialogue mechanism among the individual actors at the macro-, meso- and micro-level.

Keywords:
Language policy and planning, education policy, language education

Article Details

How to Cite
Ying, Z. (2020). Actors and Agency in Multilingual Education Policy and Planning: A Case Study in a Chinese University. Asian Journal of Language, Literature and Culture Studies, 3(3), 24-34. Retrieved from https://journalajl2c.com/index.php/AJL2C/article/view/30124
Section
Original Research Article

References

Kaplan RB, Baldauf RB. Language planning from practice to theory. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters; 1997.

Baldauf RB, Kaplan RB. Language policy decision and power: Who are the actors? In PM Ryan, R Terborg (Eds.), Language issues of inequality. Mexico City: Universidal Nacional Autonoma de Mexco. 2003;19-39.

Canagarajah S. Reclaiming the local in language policy and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 2005.

Hornberger N, Johnson CD. Slicing the Onion ethnographically: Layers and spaces in multilingual language education policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 2007;41(3):509–532.

Zhao SH, Baldauf RB. Individual agency in language planning: Chinese script reform as a case study. Language Problems & Language Planning. 2012;36(1):1–24.

Johnson CD, Johnson JE. Power and agency in language policy appropriation. Language Policy. 2015;14:221–243.

Wiley GT, Garcia O. Language policy and planning in language education: Legacies, consequences, and possibilities. The Modern Language Journal. 2016;100:48–63.

Liddicoat AJ. Constraints on agency in micro-language policy and planning in schools: A case study of curriculum change. In J. Bouchard, GP Glasgow (Eds.), Agency in language policy and planning: Critical inquiries. New York & London: Routledge. 2019;149-170.

Ricento TK. Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 2000; 4(2):196–213.

Shohamy, E. Case of language policy resistance inIsrael'scentralized educational system. In K Menken, O Garcia (Eds.), Negotiating language policies in school (pp. 182–197). New York: Routledge. 2010: 182-197.

Hornberger N, Johnson C. Slicing the Onion ethnographically: Layers and spaces in multilingual language education policy and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 2007;41(3):509–532.

Kaplan RB, Baldauf RB. Language planning from practice to theory. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters; 1997.

Hult F. How does policy influence language in education? In RE Silver, SM Lwin (Eds.), Language in education: Social implications. London: Continuum. 2014;159-175.

Hult F. Foreign language education policy on the horizon. Foreign Language Annals, 2018;51(1):35–45.

Jeon M. Globalization of English teaching and overseas Koreans as temporary migrant workers in rural Korea. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 2012;16(2):238–254.

Björkman B. Language ideology or language practice? An analysis of language policy documents at Swedish universities. Multilingua. 2014;33(3-4): 335–365.

Kelly M, Verstraete-Hansen L, Gramling D, Ryan L, Dutton J, Forsdick C. Do we need modern language graduates in a globalized world? Times Higher Education; 2017.

Lanvers, U. ‘If they are going to university, they are gonna need a language GCSE’: Co-constructing the social divide in language learning in England. System, 2018;76:129–143.

Gao X, Zheng Y. Multilingualism and higher education in greater China. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development. 2019;40(7):555–561.

Wang H, Xia JL. The current situation, problems and solutions of the non-universal languages majors construction in China. Technology Enhanced Foreign Languages (Chinese). 2017;174:91-96.

Fishman JA. Language modernization and planning in comparison with other types of national modernization and planning. Language in Society. 1973;2(1):23–43.

Jernudd BH. Language planning as a type of language treatment. In J. Rubin & R. Shuy (Eds.), Language planning: Current issues and research. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 1973;11–23.

Rubin J, Jernudd B. Can language Be Planned? Sociolinguistic theory and practice for Developing nations. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii; 1971.

Ricento TK, Hornberger NH. Unpeeling The Onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 1996;30(3):401–427.

Tollefson JW. Limitations of language policy and planning. In R Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Applied Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press. 2002; 415-423.

Ramanathan V. Rethinking language planning and policy form the ground up: Refashioning institutional realities and human lives. Current Issues in Language Planning. 2005;6(2):89–101.

Hornberger HN. Frameworks and models in language policy and planning. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy: Theory and method. Malden, MA: Blackwell. 2006;24-41.

Baldauf RB. Rearticulating the case for micro language planning in a language ecology context. In AJ Liddicoat, RB Baldauf (Eds.), Language planning and policy: Language planning in local contexts. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 2008;18-41.

Zhao SH. Actors in language planning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. New York: Routledge. 2011;905-920.

Ahearn LM. Language and agency. Annual Review of Anthropology. 2001;30(1):109–137.

Lantolf JP, Thorne SL. Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford University Press; 2006.

Fenton-Smith B, Gurney L. Actors and agency in academic language policy and planning. Current Issues in Language Planning. 2016;17(1):72–87.

Chua CSK, Baldauf RB. Micro language planning. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning. New York, NY: Routledge. 2011; 936-951.

Mayring P. Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 2000; 1(2):20.

Davis AK, Phyak P. Engaged language policy and practice. New York: Routledge; 2017.

Garcia O, Menken K. Stirring the Onion: Educators and the dynamics of language education policies (looking ahead). In K Menken, O Garcia (Eds.), Negotiating language policies in schools: Educators as policy makers. New York: Routledge. 2010; 246-261.

Wiley GT, Garcia O. Language policy and planning in language education: Legacies, consequences and possibilities. The Modern Language Journal. 2016;100:48-63.

Zhu H, Li W. Geopolitics and the changing hierarchies of the Chinese language: Implications for policy and practice of Chinese language teaching in Britain. Modern Language Journal. 2014;98(1): 326–339.

Liddicoat AJ. The interface between macro and micro-level language policy and the place of language pedagogies. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning. 2014;9(2):118–129.