SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Reconceptualising Power in Language Policy

Part of the book series: Language Policy ((LAPO,volume 30))

  • 216 Accesses

Abstract

This book focuses on the role of power in the language policies of the EU and India. The introductory chapter starts by examining the conceptualisation of power in the social sciences and language policy research and emphasises the need to ‘think across traditions’ to counter the prevailing Eurocentric narratives in the field. It describes ‘power’ in the social sciences using five viewpoints: relationality, cognition, legitimacy, multiplicity and dynamicity, and normativity. The chapter argues that normativity, which sees macro-level power as constraining, is the dominant approach in language policy research and questions whether we have considered the possibility that macro-level power can itself be constrained. The book investigates power both in texts and contexts (i.e. historical and socio-political factors through which these texts emerge), and hence employs Critical Discourse Analysis and Historical-Structural Analysis as its methods. Using minimum and maximum deviation from central-level policies, two case studies are selected from the EU (Luxembourg and Wales) and India (Manipur and Tamil Nadu). Finally, the chapter explains its choice of policy texts (legislation on language use) and policy domains (administration, legal safeguards for minorities, law, education, media, healthcare, business and social welfare).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
EUR 29.95
Price includes VAT (France)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
EUR 85.59
Price includes VAT (France)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
EUR 105.49
Price includes VAT (France)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
EUR 105.49
Price includes VAT (France)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    I am thankful to Anil Bhatti for his valuable inputs on this issue.

  2. 2.

    The EU had only 11 official languages at the time when Nelde wrote this paper. The original quote (in German) reads: ‘Das Experiment der Europäischen Union, 11 Amts- und Arbeitssprachen anzuerkennen und einzusetzen, ist in der Geschichte der Menschheit einmalig […]’. See Nelde (2003:17).

  3. 3.

    I admit here that this drawback applies to my previous works too in which the list of resources used is limited to English-language publications. See Sharma (2013) or Sharma (2015).

  4. 4.

    See Darquennes (2007), Nelde (1987, 1990, 2003), Nelde et al. (1996), and Nekvapil and Nekula (2008).

  5. 5.

    ‘Difference’ is a crucial concept, especially if we look at the debates between proponents of subaltern studies and those opposed to it (cf. Workman, 2016). While I argue for the importance of subaltern views, I do not adhere to an essentialist view of ‘difference’. As far as Indian language policies are concerned, they can and should be analysed by scholars of any background because research benefits from diversity of opinions. However, it is important to consider Indian views when writing on India and, as Ricento (2000: 5) argues, researchers should be aware of their political and epistemological biases.

  6. 6.

    Singh (1995) refers here to Kelman’s (1971) postulate of ‘language as a unifying force’ and ‘language as a divisive force’.

  7. 7.

    My own stand on this issue is that the ‘linguistic heterogeneity’ is as much a European phenomenon as in any other part of the world; however, such heterogeneity has been subjugated by the policy of standardisation.

  8. 8.

    This is my reading of Goethe’s aphorism which in its original form states ‘Wer fremde Sprachen nicht kennt, weiß nichts von seiner eigenen’ (one who does not know foreign languages does not know anything of one’s own).

  9. 9.

    By ‘comprehensive’, I mean that comparative research should not remain confined to one or two policy domains, but concern itself with a greater number of policy domains.

  10. 10.

    These eight policy domains are as follows: administration, legal safeguards for minority languages, law, education, media, healthcare, business and social welfare. Details on the choice of these domains can be found in Sect. 1.6.3.

  11. 11.

    By ‘contexts’, I mean historical, socio-political and economic factors which lead to the formulation of language policies in a given polity.

  12. 12.

    This Regulation is not in effect anymore. Its original text can be accessed using the following link: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A31993R0585. Accessed 2020, December 13.

  13. 13.

    See Sect. 3.1 for details.

  14. 14.

    See Sects. 1.5.2 and 1.6.3 for details on choice of texts and its intertwining with CDA, one of the two methods I employ in this book.

  15. 15.

    I am using the terms ‘language policy research’, ‘LP research’ and ‘policy research’ interchangeably in this work.

  16. 16.

    Essential contestation refers to matters that cannot be settled empirically. See Haugaard and Clegg (2009: 3).

  17. 17.

    See Chap. 5 for details.

  18. 18.

    I have addressed this issue briefly in Sharma (2013). However, the range of issues pertaining to an EU-India comparison topic is too large to be covered in a short-length inquiry.

  19. 19.

    Ricento’s (ibid.) use of the term ‘domains of inquiry’ does not refer to actual policy domains such as administration or education. As stated above, Ricento’s term refers to ‘particular issues which involve language matters’.

  20. 20.

    The word ‘méconnaissable’ translates to ‘unrecognisable’. The translation ‘misrecognisable’ here is based on Mangez and Hilgers (2012: 192). It is related to ‘méconnaissance’ (often translated as ‘misrecognition’), an important concept in Bourdieu’s works. See James (2014).

  21. 21.

    James (2014: 100) translates ‘méconnaître’ and ‘reconnaître’ as ‘misrecognition’ and ‘knowing again’ respectively. He also argues that ‘méconnaissance’ should be translated as ‘misattribution’ because it refers to an everyday and dynamic social process where one thing (say, a situation, process, or action) is not recognised for what it is.

  22. 22.

    The German words cited here are taken from the original. See Weber (1980).

  23. 23.

    ‘Force relations’ is a complex expression because we do not know what Foucault means by this expression (the original expression in French is ‘la multiplicité des rapports de force’). Perhaps, it is a problem of translation. Alan Sheridan translates it as ‘multiplicity of power relations’ (Philp, 1983: 33), whereas Hurley translates it as ‘multiplicity of force relations’ (Foucault, 1978: 92). Defining power as multiplicity of force relations would be acceptable if it were clear how Foucault differentiates between ‘pouvoir’ (power) and ‘force’ (force). However, such a differentiation is not outlined by him in the ‘Will to Knowledge’ (Foucault, 1978). At the same time, defining ‘power’ as a ‘multiplicity of power relations’ – as translated by Sheridan – could be construed as tautological.

  24. 24.

    I wish to clarify here that my aim is to offer a model that could help one gain clarity to a certain extent on how power has been conceptualised in the social sciences. One must keep in mind that depending on the context it might not be possible to maintain such a sharp division amongst these aspects, and there might be occasional overlaps in them.

  25. 25.

    See also Johnson (2020) for an insightful review of Glasgow and Bouchard (2019) and a useful discussion on structure and agency in LP research.

  26. 26.

    See also Barakos (2016: 27) who argues that ‘agency and structure in both discourse and language policy dialectically shape each other’.

  27. 27.

    The original German version of this quote is as follows: ‘Was vernünftig ist, das ist wirklich; und was wirklich ist, das ist vernünftig’ (Hegel, 1979). According to Longuenesse (2007: 110), this dictum has been in the past incorrectly translated as ‘rational is real and real is rational’. Magee (2010: 34-35) argues that Hegel’s concept ‘wirklich’ (translated as ‘actual’) is related to Aristotle’s ἐνέργεια (energeia; Latin: ‘actualitas’), which refers to the ‘act of realising the potential’.

  28. 28.

    My advice to anyone interested in learning about ‘ideology’ would be to not get drawn into the discussion on who described it as ‘false consciousness’ first or how many times they used the term ‘false consciousness’. Marx used the term ‘false consciousness’ only once – in a pamphlet published in 1854 against August Willich (Hamati-Ataya, 2015: 1). However, in their work ‘The German Ideology’, Marx & Engels have extensively discussed what consciousness is (without using the adjective ‘false’). About 10 years after the death of Marx, Engels used it in a letter to Franz Mehring (Engels, 1893) in which he described ‘ideology’ as ‘a process accomplished by the so-called thinker consciously, indeed, but with a false consciousness’ (Engels, 1893). Later, Lukács built upon Engels’ definition in his work on class consciousness (Lukács, 1989). For further details, see also Hamati-Ataya (2015).

  29. 29.

    See also Susan Gal’s (1989) discussion of ‘solidarity-based linguistic practices’ that resist the dominant linguistic varieties. She refers here to the example of Flemish working-class speakers who used ‘less complex syntactic structures in interviews with a stranger from a nearby university than when talking among themselves’ (p. 354).

  30. 30.

    The case studies had been selected before Brexit was finalised (2020). Hence, the UK and its constituent countries form an important part of the thesis.

  31. 31.

    The EC Report also includes data on countries or principalities (e.g. Norway, Iceland or Liechtenstein) that are not members of the EU. I shall comment only on those states that are EU-members.

  32. 32.

    As part of her ‘Language Trends’ series, Teresa Tinsley has published – in co-operation with Kathryn Board – two more reports on language learning in Wales (Tinsley & Board, 2016, 2017). However, I have referenced Tinsely (2013) because it was the latest available report at the time of selection of the case studies.

  33. 33.

    GCSE stands for ‘General Certificate of Secondary Education’. It was introduced in 1986 by merging the former qualifications. The purpose was to create a single examination system at 16+. Compared to the former qualifications, GCSE had a larger element of work throughout the period of study, representing a move away from memory and recall towards process skills and a more practically based examination. See Wilson (2011: 114).

  34. 34.

    A-Level (short for ‘General Certificate of Education advanced level’; introduced in 1951) is the qualification that follows GCSE. A-Level generally involves 2 years of study, and is the pathway to further and higher education. In Scotland, the GCSE equivalent is called ‘National 5’, and the A-Level equivalent is ‘Advanced Higher’. See Wilson (2011).

  35. 35.

    As this report was published before the reorganisation of Indian states and union territories took place in 2014 and 2019 through the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act 2014, the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act 2019 and the Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu (Merger of Union territories) Act 2019, it does not show an updated list of states and union territories. The same applies for Tables 1.4 and 5.6.

  36. 36.

    See Sect. 6.1.1 for a discussion of the term ‘tribal languages’.

  37. 37.

    See Footnote 37 and Sect. 5.2.2 for details on the states and union territories in India.

References

Primary Texts

Secondary Texts

  • Abercrombie, N., et al. (2006). The Penguin dictionary of sociology (5th ed.). Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ager, D. (1996). Language policy in Britain and France. The processes of policy. Cassell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism. Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldauf, R. B., Jr. (2006). Rearticulating the case for micro language planning in a language ecology context. Current Issues in Language Planning, 7(2&3), 147–170. https://doi.org/10.2167/cilp092.0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barakos, E. (2016). Language policy and critical discourse studies: Towards a combined approach. In E. Barakos & J. W. Unger (Eds.), Discourse approaches to language policy (pp. 23–51). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. CUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1977). Sur le pouvoir symbolique. Annales. Economies, Sociétés, Civilisations, 32(3), 405–411. https://doi.org/10.3406/ahess.1977.293828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaklader, S. (1981). Linguistic minority as a cohesive force in Indian federal process. Associated Publishing House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cincotta-Segi, A. R. (2011). The big ones swallow the small ones’. Or do they? The language policy and practice of ethnic minority education in the Lao PDR: A case study from Nalae. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 32(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2010.527343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clegg, S. R., & Haugaard, M. (2009). Discourses of power. In S. R. Clegg & M. Haugaard (Eds.), The Sage handbook of power (pp. 400–465). Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • COE (Council of Europe). (1992). The European charter of regional and minority languages. https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/148. Accessed 2021, February 3.

  • Dahl, R. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 2(3), 201–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darquennes, J. (Ed.). (2007). The future has already begun. Recent approaches in conflict linguistics. Forschungsansätze der Konfliktlinguistik. Tendances de la linguistique de conflit. Asgard.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Bot, K. (1997). Nelde’s law revisited: Dutch as a diaspora language. In W. Woelck & A. de Houwer (Eds.), Recent studies in contact linguistics (pp. 51–59). Duemmler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dean, M. (2009). Three conceptions of the relationship between power and liberty. In S. R. Clegg & M. Haugaard (Eds.), The Sage handbook of power (pp. 177–193). Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • DGLFLF (Délégation générale à la langue française et aux langues de France). (2021). Langues de France. https://www.culture.gouv.fr/Sites-thematiques/Langue-francaise-et-langues-de-France/Politiques-de-la-langue/Langues-de-France/Langues-regionales. Accessed 2021, February 3.

  • EACEA (Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency). (2012). Key data on teaching languages at school in Europe. https://eacea.ec.europa.eu/national-policies/eurydice/content/key-data-teaching-languages-school-europe-2012_en. Accessed 2021, April 21.

  • EC (European Commission). (2014). Languages in education and training: Final country comparative analysis. https://ec.europa.eu/assets/eac/education/experts-groups/2011-2013/languages/lang-eat_en.pdf. Accessed 2021, April 21.

  • Engels, F. (1893, July 14). Engels to Franz Mehring. London. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1893/letters/93_07_14.htm. Accessed 2021, May 8.

  • Engelstad, F. (2009). Culture and power. In S. R. Clegg & M. Haugaard (Eds.), The Sage handbook of power (pp. 210–238). Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Eschenbach, W. V. (1891). Parzival. In K. Lachmann (Ed.), Wolfram von Eschenbach. Werke (5th ed.). https://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/germanica/Chronologie/13Jh/Wolfram/wol_pa15.html. Accessed 2021, February 4.

  • Eur-Lex. (2011). Action plan on language learning and linguistic diversity. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=LEGISSUM:c11068&from=EN. Accessed 2021, February 3.

  • Fairclough, N. (2015). Language and power (3rd ed.). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foucault, M. (1978). The will to knowledge. The history of sexuality Vol. I, translated from the French by Robert Hurley. London, etc.: Penguin (original French title ‘La Volonté de savoir’).

    Google Scholar 

  • Frierson, P. (2011). Introduction. In P. Frierson & P. Guyer (Eds.), Immanuel Kant: Observations on the feeling of the beautiful and sublime and other writings (pp. vii–xxxv). CUP.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gal, S. (1989). Language and political economy. Annual Review of Anthropology, 18, 345–367. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2155896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallie, W. B. (1955). Essentially contested concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 56, 167–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gao, F. (2011). Linguistic capital: Continuity and change in educational language policies for South Asians in Hong Kong primary schools. Current Issues in Language Planning, 12(2), 251–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1984). Constitution of society. University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glasgow, G. P., & Bouchard, J. (2019). Introduction. In J. Bouchard & G. P. Glasgow (Eds.), Agency in language policy and planning. Critical inquiries (pp. 1–21). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goethe, J. W. V. (1963). Maximen und Reflexionen. In W. Weber & H. J. Schrimpf (Eds.), Goethes Werke. Band XII (pp. 365–547). Christian Wegner Publishing house.

    Google Scholar 

  • Göhler, G. (2009). ‘Power to’ and ‘Power over’. In S. R. Clegg & M. Haugaard (Eds.), The Sage handbook of power (pp. 27–39). Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gramsci, A. (1992). Selections from prison notebooks. International Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, R. S., & Abbi, A. (1995). The eighth schedule. A critical introduction. In R. S. Gupta et al. (Eds.), Language and the state. Perspectives on eighth schedule (pp. 1–7). Creative Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halonen, M., Ihalainen, P., & Saarinen, T. (2015). Language policies in Finland and Sweden: Interdisciplinary and multi-sited comparisons. Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamati-Ataya, I. (2015). False consciousness. In M. T. Gibbons (Ed.), Encyclopedia of political thought. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118474396.wbept0353

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Haugaard, M. (2009). Power and hegemony. In S. R. Clegg & M. Haugaard (Eds.), The Sage handbook of power (pp. 239–255). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haugaard, M., & Clegg, S. R. (2009). Introduction: Why power is the central concept of the social sciences. In S. R. Clegg & M. Haugaard (Eds.), The Sage handbook of power (pp. 1–24). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegel, G. W. F. (1979). Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts. http://www.zeno.org/Philosophie/M/Hegel,+Georg+Wilhelm+Friedrich/Grundlinien+der+Philosophie+des+Rechts/Vorrede. Accessed 2021, May 9.

  • Hegel, G. W. F. (2003). Elements of the philosophy of right, A. W. Wood (Ed.) and (H. B. Nisbet, trans.). CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heywood, A. (2000). Key concepts in politics. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heywood, A. (2015). Political theory. An introduction (4th ed.). Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbes, T. (1985). Leviathan, edited with an introduction by C.B. Macpherson. Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hornberger, N. H., & Skilton-Sylvester, E. (2000). Revisiting the continua of biliteracy: International and critical perspectives. Language and Education, 14(2), 96–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780008666781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horner, K., & Weber, J.-J. (2008). The language situation in Luxembourg. Current Issues in Language Planning, 9(1), 69–128. https://doi.org/10.2167/cilp130.0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hume, D. (n.d.). Of national characters. https://davidhume.Org/texts/empl1/nc. Accessed 2022, 10 July.

  • James, D. (2014). How Bourdieu bites back: Recognising misrecognition in education and educational research. Cambridge Journal of Education, 45(1), 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2014.987644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, R. (2009). The ways and means of power: Efficacy and resources. In S. R. Clegg & M. Haugaard (Eds.), The Sage handbook of power (pp. 140–156). Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. C. (2013). Language policy. Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. C. (2020). Review of ‘agency in language policy and planning: Critical inquiries, edited by J. Bouchard & G.P. Glasgow’. Current Issues in Language Planning. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2020.1748939

  • Johnson, D. C., & Johnson, E. J. (2014). Power and agency in language policy appropriation. Language Policy. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272532536_Power_and_agency_in_language_policy_appropriation. Accessed 2021, May 5.

  • Kandiah, T. (2002). Review of ‘Thomas Ricento (ed.). 2000. Ideology, politics and language policies. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins’. English World-Wide, 23(2), 317–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (2011). Observations on the feeling of the beautiful and sublime and other writings. In P. Frierson & P. Guyer (Eds. and trans.), Immanuel Kant: Observations on the feeling of the beautiful and sublime and other writings (pp. 11–62). CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelman, H. C. (1971). Language as an aid and barrier to involvement in the national system. In J. Rubin & B. Jernudd (Eds.), Can language be planned? Sociolinguistic theory and practice for develo** nations (pp. 21–51). The University Press of Hawaii.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lampert-Weissig, L. (2010). Medieval literature and postcolonial studies. Edinburgh University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Liddicoat, A., & Taylor-Leech, K. (2020). Agency in language planning and policy. Current Issues in Language Planning. https://doi.org/10.1080/14664208.2020.1791533

  • Longuenesse, B. (2007). Hegel’s critique of metaphysics. CUP.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lukács, G. (1989). Class consciousness. In R. S. Gottlieb (Ed.), An anthology of Western Marxism: From Lukacs and Gramsci to Socialist-Feminism (pp. 54–75). OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lukes, S. (1974). Power: A radical view. Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lyotard, J.-F. (1984). The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge (G. Bennington & B. Massumi, trans.). Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magee, G. A. (2010). The Hegel dictionary. Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Makoni, S., & Pennycook, A. (2007). Disinventing and reconstituting languages. In S. Makoni & A. Pennycook (Eds.), Disinventing and reconstituting languages (pp. 1–41). Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangez, E., & Hilgers, M. (2012). The field of knowledge and the policy field in education: PISA and the production of knowledge for policy. European Educational Research Journal, 11(2), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2012.11.2.189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2015). The German ideology (2nd reprint ed.). People’s Publishing House.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarty, T. (2011). Introducing ethnography and language policy. In T. McCarty (Ed.), Ethnography and language policy (pp. 1–28). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menken, K. (2008). English learners left behind: Standardized testing as language policy. Multilingual Matters.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • MHRD (Ministry of Human Resource Development, India). (1968). National Policy on Education 1968. https://www.education.gov.in/en/national-policy-education-1968. Accessed 2021, February 19.

  • MHRD (Ministry of Human Resource Development, India). (2014). Selected information on school education 2011–2012. Bureau of Planning, Monitoring and Statistics. https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/statistics/SISH201112.pdf. Accessed 2021, February 20.

  • Nekvapil, J., & Nekula, M. (2008). On language management in multilingual companies in the Czech Republic. In A. J. Liddicoat & R. B. Baldauf Jr. (Eds.), Language planning in local contexts (pp. 268–287). Multilingual Matters.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nelde, P. H. (1987). Language contact means language conflict. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 8(1–2), 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.1987.9994273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelde, P. H. (Ed.). (1990). Confli(c)t. ABLA Papers 14, proceedings of the international symposium ‘Contact+Confli(c)t, Brussels, 2–4 June 1988. Association Belge de Linguistique Appliquée.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelde, P. H. (2003). Mehrsprachigkeit und Minderheiten in Europa. In E. Gugenberger & M. Blumberg (Eds.), Vielsprachiges Europa (pp. 15–29). Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelde, P. H., Strubell, M., & Williams, G. (1996). Euromosaic: The production and reproduction of the minority language groups in the European Union. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newcomer, J. (1984). The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg: The evolution of nationhood 963 A.D. to 1983. University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, G. (1996a). Luxembourg: The nation. In G. Newton (Ed.), Luxembourg and Lëtzebuergesch: Language and Communication at the Crossroads of Europe (pp. 5–38). Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, G. (1996b). Lëtzebuergesch and the establishment of national identity. In G. Newton (Ed.), Luxembourg and Lëtzebuergesch: Language and Communication at the Crossroads of Europe (pp. 181–216). Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nigam, A. (2020). Decolonizing theory. Thinking across traditions. Bloomsbury.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • O’Rourke, B. (2011). Galician and Irish in the European context: Attitudes towards weak and strong minority languages. Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Oakes, L. (2001). Language and national identity: Comparing France and Sweden. John Benjamins.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pattanayak, D. P. (1981). Multilingualism and mother tongue education. OUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pattanayak, D. P. (1983). Review of ‘the civil tongue: Political consequences of languages by B. Weinstein, Longman: New York/London’. Language Planning Newsletter, 9(4), 5–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Philp, M. (1983). Foucault on power: A problem in radical translation? Political Theory, 11(1), 29–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piller, I. (2015). Language ideologies. In K. Tracy, T. Sandel, & C. Ilie (Eds.), The international encyclopaedia of language and social interaction. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi140

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pitkin, H. (1972). Wittgenstein and justice. University of California Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pollock, S. (2006). The language of the gods in the world of men: Sanskrit, culture, and power in premodern India. University of California Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ricento, T. (2000). Historical and theoretical perspectives in language policy and planning. In T. Ricento (Ed.), Ideology, politics and language policies: Focus on English (pp. 9–24). Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ricento, T. (2006). Language policy: Theory and practice – An introduction. In T. Ricento (Ed.), An introduction to language policy. Theory and method (pp. 10–23). Malden/Oxford/Carlton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ricento, T., & Hornberger, N. (1996). Unpeeling the onion: Language planning and policy and the ELT professional. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 401–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schedel, H. (1493). Die Schedelsche Weltchronik. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schedelsche_Weltchronik_d_012.jpg. Accessed 2021, May 26.

  • Schubert, K. (1990). Editorial perspectives: A new decade and a new direction. Language Problems & Language Planning, 14, 85–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, A. (2013). The language question in the EU and India. Razprave in Gradivo/Treatises and Documents, 71, 69–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, A. (2015). Language conflicts, dominance and linguistic minorities in India. In B. Schrammel-Leber & C. Korb (Eds.), Dominated languages in the 21st century: Papers from the international conference on minority languages XIV (pp. 38–51). Grazer Linguistische Monographien.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy. Hidden agendas and new approaches. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, U. N. (1995). Comments on Lachman Khubchandani. In R. S. Gupta et al. (Eds.), Language and the state: Perspectives on the eighth schedule (pp. 42–49). Creative Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2003). (Why) should diversities be maintained? Language diversity, biological diversity and linguistic human rights. Glendon Distinguished Lecture. https://uea.org/vikio/Why_Should_Diversities_Be_Maintained._Language_And_Biological_Diversity_And_Linguistic_Human_Rights. Accessed 2020, December 11.

  • Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2009). Linguistic Genocide: Tribal education in India. In M. K. Mishra (Ed.), NFCS Newsletter special issue no. 32 on tribal education. National Folklore Support Center. http://www.tove-skutnabb-kangas.org/pdf/Tove_Skutnabb_Kangas_India_tribal_education_and_participating_in_crimes_against_humanity.pdf. Accessed 2020, December 4.

  • Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spolsky, B., & Shohamy, E. (1999). The languages of Israel: Policy, ideology and practice. Multilingual matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, A. (2017). Hegel and colonialism. Lancaster E-Prints. https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/86891/4/hegel_and_colonialism.pdf. Accessed 2021, January 31.

  • Studer, P. et al. (2008). Language policy-planning in a European context. Working paper no. 43. Institute of Linguistics, Bern: Univ. of Bern.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. (2018). Foucault, feminism, and sex crimes. An anti-carceral analysis. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tinsely, T. (2013). Languages: The state of the nation. Demand and supply of language skills. British Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinsley, T., & Board, K. (2016). Language trends Wales 2015/16: The state of language learning in primary and secondary schools in Wales. British Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tinsley, T., & Board, K. (2017). Language trends Wales 2016/17. The state of language learning in secondary schools in Wales. British Council Wales.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tollefson, J. (1991). Planning languages, planning inequality. Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tollefson, J. (2002). Language rights and the destruction of Yugoslavia. In J. Tollefson (Ed.), Language policies in education: Critical issues (pp. 175–199). Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tollefson, J. (2013). Language policy in a time of crisis and transformation. In J. Tollefson (Ed.), Language policies in education: Critical issues (pp. 11–32). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tollefson, J. (2015). Historical-structural analysis. In F. Hult & D. C. Johnson (Eds.), Research methods in language policy and planning. A practical guide (pp. 140–151). Wiley Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dijk, T. A. (2012). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Critical Quest.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vishwanatham, K. (2001). The eighth schedule and the three language formula. In C. J. Daswani (Ed.), Language education in multilingual India (pp. 299–336). UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society. An outline of the interpretative sociology, G. Roth & C. Wittich (Eds.) (E. Fischoff, H. Gerth, A. M. Henderson, F. Kolegar, C. W. Mills, T. Parsons, M. Rheinstein, G. Roth, E. Shills, & C. Wittich, trans.). University of California Press (original German title ‘Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriß der verstehenden Soziologie’).

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1980). In J. Winckelmann (Ed.), Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriß der verstehenden Soziologie (5th ed.). J.C.B. Mohr. http://www.zeno.org/Soziologie/M/Weber,+Max/Grundri%C3%9F+der+Soziologie/Wirtschaft+und+Gesellschaft. Accessed 2021, May 11.

  • Weinstein, B. (1983). The civil tongue: Political consequences of languages. Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J. P. (2011). The Routledge encyclopedia of UK education, training and employment. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wodak, R. et al. (2009). The discursive construction of national identity, 2nd edition, (A. Hirsch, et al., trans.) : Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolard, K. A. (2021). Language ideology. The International Encyclopedia of Linguistic Anthropology. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118786093.iela0217

  • Workman, T. (2016). The perils of comparison in subaltern studies and its critique. Cultural Critique, 94, 156–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Žižek, S. (2011). Living in the end times. Verso.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for German Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India

    Abhimanyu Sharma

Authors
  1. Abhimanyu Sharma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Sharma, A. (2022). Introduction. In: Reconceptualising Power in Language Policy . Language Policy, vol 30. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09461-3_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-09461-3_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-09460-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-09461-3

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation