Ricento, Thomas (2006). An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method. Reviewed by Paul McPherron, University of California at Davis

Ricento, Thomas (2006). An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Pp. xii + 371 $34.95   ISBN 1-4051-1498-3 Reviewed by Paul McPherron University of California at Davis January 4, 2007 Functioning as an update to the 1996 special issue of TESOL Quarterly on language policy (LP), edited by Nancy Hornberger and Thomas Ricento, An Introduction to Language Policy, this time edited solely by Ricento, revisits the foundational question, “what is it that scholars who specialize in LP study?” (p. 12). The wide breadth of answers and approaches to this question, both theoretical and methodological, are reflected in the diverse topics and perspectives contained in the anthology. Ricento skillfully synthesizes the disparate voices and work in LP while avoiding overly prescribing parameters of inquiry or creating a “grand narrative” of the field itself. This is a refreshing approach as a narrow definition of LP work would take away from what Ricento calls the “vitality, unpredictability, and attractiveness” of LP research due to its combination of “theoretical/methodological rigor with social advocacy” (p. xi). The book follows a theory/method/special topics division in organizing its three main sections. In Part I, “Theoretical Perspectives on Language Policy,” Nancy Hornberger uses chapter 2 to summarize theoretical frameworks of LP research including its traditional distinctions between corpus, status, and acquisition planning and its constant re-positioning between theory and practice. Then, in Chapters 3-7 different authors argue for the inclusion of differing theoretical frameworks (such as political theory) in conceptualizing language polices. Large differences between chapters underscore the diversity of the field. In chapter 4 on post-modernism, Alastair Pennycook questions how language can be planned for either status or emancipatory goals if no singular, narrative of a language is possible. Alternatively, in chapter 5 Francois Grin discusses the relevance of using economic models of “costs” and “benefits” in evaluating policies. Underscoring a theme in the book that languages are far more than communication systems, in Chapter 7 Harold Schiffman presents the term “linguistic culture,” defined as “the sum totality of ideas, values, beliefs, attitudes, prejudices, myths, religious stricture and all the other cultural ‘baggage’ that speakers bring to their dealings” (p. 111). He argues that this term is vital in theorizing about LP since there is such a variety of “linguistic cultures,” but “power elites” and social scientists often view language only as a one-size fits all “black box” (p. 121). As Ricento mentions clearly in the introduction to Part II, “Methodological Perspectives in Language Policy,” no method is distinct from theory, and each of the chapters provides examples of a method of inquiry into LP that is both in sync with and critical of dominant theories presented in Part I. For example, in Chapter 8, Terrence Wiley traces historical investigations of language polices and critiques both modernist, “grand narratives” of language policy as well what he calls the nihilistic tendencies of post-modernist writing that fails to deal with actual historical realities (p. 139). In Chapters 9 and 10, Suresh Canagarajah and Ruth Wodak present the well-known methods of ethnography and discourse analysis, both making clear connections to critical practice, which is described as studying language policy itself as tied to social practice and ideology. Drawing on sociolinguistics and conceptions such as “vitality” and “subtractive” vs. “additive” bilingualism, Don Cartwright and Colin Baker in chapters 11 and 12 provide geo-linguistics and psycho-social methodologies as a more “top-down” view of language communities and the effects of LP on language use and attitudes. Baker also considers examples of the growing use of more localized action research projects in social science LP work. Part III, “Topical Areas in Language Policy” may be the most relevant to the work of education researchers and practitioners. Chapters 14 (Stephen May), 15 (Tove Skutnabb-Kangas), and 16 (Christina Bratt Paulston and Kai Heidemann) question whether educational institutions are simply enforcing assimilation of linguistic minority students through a majority language such as English or also have the potential to protect minority language rights (MLR) through school support of multilingualism. Another key point discussed in part III is whether language policies can and should work to reverse language shift. In response to this question, Joshua Fishman in chapter 17 on language shift and Robert Phillipson in chapter 19 on linguistic imperialism take up their previous debate on whether the growing role of English as a lingua-franca ties it to inequality and Americanization. Jan Blommaert’s chapter 13 on national identity suggests that both Phillipson/MLR and Fishman/status and corpus planning still follow a monoglot ideology (Silverstein, 1996), fixing group identity to monolingualism and, instead, should move to see language policy as a “niched” activity in relation to multiple discourses and identity processes. Chapters in all three sections conclude with very useful annotated bibliographies and discussion questions. Many of the questions are broad and would require further research in order to be useful for classroom discussions, but the questions provide insights into future directions that chapter authors see LP work heading. In addition, some questions are simply straight-forward challenges to readers such as when Skutnabb-Kangas asks: “Have you yourself participated in committing linguistic genocide in education? Discuss!” (p. 288). While each chapter provides insightful examples and discussion on its particular perspective, the reader may still have questions about how certain chapters could be applied to LP work. In particular, it is unclear from Francois Grin’s chapter just how useful economic models are in analyzing LP, especially given the overall theme that language policy is never simply about communication. Grin admits this limitation, and perhaps more detailed examples from Grin (2003) could have broadened the scope of the chapter. Similarly, Don Cartwright’s chapter on geo-politics, while offering interesting case-studies of the policies in Wales and Belgium, does not offer a clear methodology for geo-linguistic LP work. In addition, many authors such as Wiley mention the relevance of “local knowledge” as vital to any discussion of LP, and perhaps more examples and even a chapter dealing with problems in defining “local” concerns in LP would have been relevant (see Ramanathan 2005). Despite these minor limitations, the multiple perspectives and examples dealt with in the anthology clearly illustrate that language policies affect all levels of education from local, institutional, and national to international. Practitioners and researchers in education will find this book both an important introduction to the field of LP and a useful departure point in framing their own work within and in relation to language policy studies. References Grin, F. (2003). Language policy evaluation and the European Charter for regional or minority languages. New York: Macmillan. Hornberger, N., & Ricento, T. (Eds). (1996). Language planning and policy (Special issue) TESOL Quarterly, 30(3). Silverstein, M. (1996). Monoglot "standard" in America: Standardization and metaphors of linguistic hegemony. In Brenneis, D. & Macaulay (Eds.) The matrix of language: Contemporary linguistic anthropology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 284-306. Ramanathan, V. (2005). The English-vernacular divide: Post-colonial language politics and practice. Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters. About the Reviewer Paul McPherron is a graduate student in Linguistics at the University of California, Davis. His research interests include critical teaching practices, university language policies, and the discourses of globalization.