2.2. Concept of language policy

to the so-called language myths (e.g. Bauer and Trudgill, 1998). They argue that certain normative grammar recommendations in English are the result of language policy rather than the evolution of the language variant used by native speakers. For example, the ban on dividing the infinitive results from the adoption of the grammatical norms of the Latin language, regarded as an ideal one, into the English language by the eighteenth-century linguists. The same applies to excluding the use of verbs expressing movement in the “be going to” structure, which has first appeared in grammar textbooks in the early 20th century and has been present in them ever since, even though native English speakers do not abide by it, as shown by corpus linguistic research (Burton, 2021).

Other researchers went a step further. They do not consider many myths as examples of language policy, but point to the existence of a language myth as such. Roy Harris (1981) emphasises two of its communication aspects. Firstly, he questions the existence of a language as a code non-fixity, and secondly, questions the so-called telementation, i.e. the ability to convey thoughts with the help of words. In such an approach, communication is never effective because both interlocutors use different forms and meanings, which does not guarantee the exact transfer of thoughts, i.e. a full mutual understanding between the conversation participants. This assumption became the basis for Harris to redefine the concept of both language and its attributes.

Contemporary linguists are most often far from a positivist vision of knowledge conveyed through a structured, objective language. In the postmodern world, both knowledge and the language that is used to expand it are under constant pressure. No longer is knowledge objective (critical theory), nor is language an objective instrument of its transmission (an interactive group of linguistic theories, including the critical theory). In other words, both of these elements are politically influenced and exposed to ideology.

Bearing in mind that language and language policy are at the centre of our considerations, in what follows we will first try to define what we mean by language policy and then move on to the issue of language ideologies stemming from it. However, we hope that this initial reflection on the language itself will help the readers better understand these key issues.

The term “language policy” is not as unambiguous as it might seem. The second element of the term is the most troublesome because of its fuzziness. It refers to “both the broad institutional, ideological, and legal-organisational sphere, which

is related to gaining, maintaining and exercising power, as well as the conscious and purposeful «activity» of individuals and organisations” (Pawłowski, 2006, p. 7). Additionally, as emphasised by Pawłowski, the understanding of this concept in Poland is conditioned by the historical context, i.e. the struggle to defend the national identity. It is thus unsurprising that Walery Pisarek describes the task of the Polish language policy as follows:

[Poland’s language policy] consists in watching over the development of the Polish language, popularising the beautiful Polish language, issuing language laws, and standardising and codifying the Polish language. In addition, […] institutions try to awaken the linguistic awareness of Poles and spread among them care for the culture of the language. An important aspect of language policy is also to promote the Polish language abroad and support learning Polish as a foreign language [transl.].

(Pisarek, 2001)

This attitude towards the language policy was reflected in the Act on the Polish language (1999) and was criticised by some Polish language authorities (cf. Bień, 2003; Piotrowski, 2011). The problematic nature of this concept in the context of practising science was also emphasised by Grzegorz Lisek:

Language policy is a difficult topic, not only because of the danger of extreme politicisation of the processes related to it. It is so because of its position at the interface of many sciences, such as linguistics, cultural studies and political science. It is important that whenever language is concerned, the topic should be considered not only strictly philologically but taking into account its many aspects. The language is inseparably connected with its users who, depending on the state or religious community, may constitute a majority or a minority in a given human group [transl.].

(Lisek, 2011, pp. 79–80)

Language policy may be direct and include detailed regulations contained in specific documents or explicit (putative), resulting from the behaviour and actions of persons or institutions. According to the latter approach, it is expressed “in daily decisions of individual persons and groups, thus taking on a more intimate

dimension: private, family or social (Linda-Grycza, 2016, pp. 105–106, transl.). Moreover, the term may refer to many spheres of human activity and take various forms. In some publications, it is used interchangeably with the term “language planning” (Pawłowski, 2006).

Similar observations can be found in English-language literature, where older publications equate language policy with language planning (Kaplan and Baldauf, 1997). On the other hand, for years there have been at least two journals dealing with language policy issues: “Current Issues in Language Planning” (Taylor&Francis Publishing House) and “Language Policy” (Springer Publishing House). The titles of these journals indicate the complete interchangeability of these terms as their scope is largely the same. However, planning is only a part of language policy: “it can be seen narrowly, as language planning itself, but also broadly – as both positioning the status of a language and a purist approach to loanwords” (Lisek, 2011, p. 80, transl.).

Walery Pisarek, the first president of the Polish Language Council, construed language policy as “all conscious activities aimed at shaping the desired individual and team linguistic behaviour” (Pisarek, 2007, transl.). On the other hand, Tomasz Wicherkiewicz, referring to Robert Kaplan and Richard Baldauf (1997), defined language policy as “a set of all directives concerning the shaping of society’s attitude to the language or languages present (even symbolically) and used in this society” (Wicherkiewicz, 2016, p. 113, transl.). Thus, he identified language policy with activities relating to the official and regional language or languages, whether of minorities or immigrants, or foreign languages taught and used, or dead or classical languages used in certain contexts, e.g. in medicine or liturgy. In terms of education, considering the assumptions of the language policy of the European Union, especially of the Council of Europe, Hanna Komorowska defined language policy as “a set of assumptions and priorities in the education system” (Komorowska, 2004, p. 38, transl.). The same author outlined the scope of the impact of language policy in relation to such issues as the “selection of languages, their type and number available in schools’; the status of foreign languages and the languages of national minorities; teaching policies and procedures, including objectives, language curricula and methods; exams and certification; education and training of teachers” (Komorowska, 2004, p. 38, transl.).

The very issue of language policy appeared in international discussion in the 1960s and 1970s and was related to the processes of decolonisation and language problems faced by the newly established states (Kutyłowska, 2013). Today, the problems of language policy are still very much alive but there has been a shift in interest: