Can Language Policy Ever Be Neutral?

The concept of language policy is often presented from the standpoint of equity in that it will provide the same level of clarity, accessibility and opportunity to all members of society. Language policy is set forth in an administrative way rather than an ideological way as an objective process for ordering communication to provide equitable benefit to all. This assumption flows through all aspects of language use in education (e.g., use of language of instruction), the language of national assessment (e.g., test administration), and the language of signage in public places, each of which is assumed to have been made objectively and almost in a neutral manner.

That being said, the notion of neutral is more tenuous than it appears to be in this context.

Language is much more than just a communications tool. Language also represents an individual or group's identity, the history or experiences of an individual or group, and the power structures that exist in society that either allows access or deny access to individuals or groups based on the way they communicate with each other and with larger society.

The moment the government determines which language(s) will be used as the standard, priority or regulated language(s), it is not merely organising communication, but rather shaping who will find it easy to be part of society and who will need to work more difficult to be able to communicate.

The Illusion of a “Neutral” Standard

Most language policies have at their core the concept of a standard. The standard language, dialect, or expression will usually be the one that is seen as suitable for use in schools, government, and by all people in public life. At first glance, this makes sense. Having a singular standard means that there can be consistency and understanding among people who speak those standard languages.

However, the question that is often not asked is whose standards are being used to judge correctness.

Standardized languages do not appear full-grown from nowhere. They are usually derived from the dialects of socially, economically or politically powerful groups of people. Once these languages are formalized into policy they take on a level of authority from institutions which means they become the ‘correct’, ‘professional’ and, ‘legitimate’ version of the language.

Having done research on this topic, it is indicated that students who speak closer to the 'standard' fare better on formal assessments not necessarily because they understand the content but they already aligned with the linguistically based expectations of the system. Those students who may also be quite capable of understanding the material have to translate content and themselves into the standard.

This is where neutrality begins to fall apart. A system cannot be neutral if it rewards people who know how to use a particular linguistic norm.

Image Credit: Raya Khaled

Take the Quiz: Religion, Schools, and Equality

Religion in Schools: Teaching Respect, Not Bias.

Bilingual Education and Unequal Balance

Bilingual education has been regarded as a model of inclusive language policy; however, it has not shown a genuine commitment to inclusion when researched.

For bilingual education to be truly inclusive, two languages must be recognized, as well as provided for (and used) in both institutional and formal education environments. By doing this, both languages will be respected and given equal opportunity for students of different language groups.

In practice, however, much of the expectation for support and equality between the two languages is not equal.

More often than not, one language carries more institutional power than the other. The higher education language promoted by institutions; and the language used for formal examinations are typically the same. Furthermore, the other language is often recognized as a supplementary language, much less powerful than the first. As such, this reinforces the idea from the student's point of view which language is "most important" and reinforces the hierarchy of these two languages in the education system, based upon how these two languages function within the educational system of the student.

In conducting my own research of bilingual programmes and the success of students within these programmes in both languages, I have found that students appear to be able to talk to others using both languages; but that they are more competent in the academic language associated with institutional preference.

Thus, it is possible for policies to appear neutral to the education environment, while in reality the educational environment is affected by the policy that produces an environment in which one of the languages is more respected than the other language.

The Language of Exams

National examinations are one place that show the public how language policy negatively affects students. Exams are perceived as a way to objectively measure knowledge and skills. It is assumed all candidates take the exam under identical conditions (therefore, they will be assessed against similar standards).

The language of the examination will influence whether or not a candidate has been assessed fairly.

The way questions are worded, the vocabulary utilised within the examination, the references made to culture will all influence how accessible an examination is to diverse groups of candidates. Small differences in how language is used would result in a candidate understanding and responding to a question in a different way.

Research has shown that candidates who do not use their first language, or candidates who are not familiar with the dominant academic register, have an additional cognitive load to manage whilst completing their examination. Candidates must not only solve problems that they are being asked to solve but also decode the examination language that has been used to ask them the questions.

This does not indicate that assessments are actively designed to exclude candidates. However, examinations are not neutral. The way that assessments are constructed advantages those who are already operating within the assessment's language and literacy.

Image Credit: Billy Albert from Unsplash

Public Space, Public Voice

In addition to classrooms and tests, language policy impacts people's everyday environments. The presence of a language in our environment can be demonstrated by the language of street signs, as well as in documents issued by governments, public announcements made by agencies, and on official websites.

Signs posted in public places, in particular, serve as a direct example of how choosing a language for public signage communicates belongingness. The presence of a language in public signage represents recognition and inclusion for the speakers of that language. The absence of a language in public signage creates a sense of invisibility for the speakers of that language.

Governments often depict multilingual public signage as a way of providing for the needs of diverse populations, thereby being a neutral, non-preferential solution; yet, making a decision about which languages will be included, the order and prominence in which the languages will appear, are not neutral decisions, because they are influenced by population data, by the priorities of government and by historical relations among languages.

Public Spaces frequently display a linguistic policy landscape and as such, the concept of neutrality is negotiated rather than realized.

Policy as Trade-Off

What becomes clear across these examples is that language policy is not about finding a perfect neutral solution. It is about managing trade-offs.

Promoting one language may increase efficiency but reduce inclusivity. Expanding multilingual options may increase access but create practical challenges in implementation. Standardising language can support clarity but marginalise non-standard speakers.

There is no version of language policy that exists outside of these tensions. Every decision carries consequences for different groups, even when those consequences are unintended.

This does not mean that fairness is impossible. But it does mean that fairness cannot be equated with neutrality. A policy can aim to be equitable while still acknowledging that it cannot treat all linguistic realities as identical.

Image Credit: Ben Wicks from Unsplash

Rethinking Neutrality

It may not be whether it is possible to have a neutral language policy, but whether neutrality should be the goal at all.

Neutrality suggests no bias, but in a world where languages are connected to historical context, identity, and access to power; defining or ever achieving the absence of bias is difficult, if not impossible. Something that looks neutral from one perspective may feel like exclusionary to another perspective.

One of the most consistent findings from my research is that policies will be more effective to the extent that they consider this complexity rather than try to eliminate it. By recognising that language decisions have different impacts; policymakers will be able to intentionally design for equity, since they will know to consider it rather than simply assume it.

Who Gets to Be Heard

Fundamentally, language policy is more than mere communication - it represents an expression of identity.

It defines who has easy access to educational systems, as well as determining the level of difficulty in accessing social services or government agencies. Furthermore, it indicates the degree to which an individual’s primary language, and thus their identity, is acknowledged within the contexts which will shape their everyday life.

Neutrality can, therefore, be looked upon more as a question than as a goal, as something that is not completely attainable, but rather, as a concept that provides insight into the dynamics of inclusion and exclusion each time it is addressed.

Because of this, language cannot solely be defined by spoken word.

It encompasses those that are acknowledged as having the right to an opportunity to speak and those individuals that are required to put additional effort into having their message understood.