In searching for a definition for language planning it became evident that there are numerous variations of the term depending on the context and the issue it is addressing.  Tollefson wrote, “The commonly accepted definition of language planning is that it refers to all conscious efforts to affect the structure or function of language varieties (Tollefson 1991: 16).  Another widely accepted definition given by Fishman is “the organized pursuit of solutions to language problems, usually at a national level.”  (Karam 1971:  105)  These definitions explain the common elements that seem to appear in most definition of language planning, attempts to find solutions to problems concerning language.

There also seems to be several opposing views on the benefits and drawbacks to language planning within a speech community.  Tollefson states this is because “this incipient struggle over who is doing the planning and on behalf of whom, for what local and state purposes and with what anticipated effects, has taken time to surface.” (Tollefson 1991: iv)

A positive view expressed by Eastman stated, “We plan language to enhance communication with and between nations to encourage feelings of national unity and group cooperation.” (Eastman 1983: 3)

A negative view expressed by Cooper was that “regardless of the type of language planning, in nearly all cases the language problem to be solved is not a problem in isolation within the region or nation but is directly associated with the political, economic, scientific, social, cultural, and/or religious situation.” (Cooper 1989: 35)  She goes on to say that “ … it is preferable to define language planning as not efforts to solve language problems but rather as efforts to influence language behavior.” (Cooper 1989: 35)

 Joshua A. Fishman, one of the primary researchers in language, culture and bilingual education studies, examines how this affects our culture.  “Fishman … believes that a contributing factor to language problems in the U.S. is the general populace’s perception of English as … solely a means of communication”.  Fishman has stated in his writings that we “have no understanding of, and even have a disdain for, language as a factor of world history and national identification”.  He also says that one of our greatest failings is that we do not see language as “something of beauty, elegance, precision, purity or greatness”.   This way of thinking has brought about language planning, requiring “commicating with various segments of our population in various languages if all are to be treated equally” (Adams & Brink 1991: 19).
 
 

A speech community was defined early in the twentieth century by Bloomfield as, “1. Definition. An act of speech is an utterance. 2. Assumption. Within certain communities successive utterances are alike or partly alike… 3. Definition. Any such community is a speech community." Bloomfield (1926:153-4)

 Many studies into speech communities have drawn a line between the definition of a speech community and a language community.  Some definitions suggest that a language community is defined by its use of language and that a speech community is defined by its values and behaviour.  Labov stated that, "The speech community is not defined by any marked agreement in the use of language elements, so much as by participation in a set of shared norms. These norms may be observed in overt types of evaluative behavior, and by the uniformity of abstract patterns of variation which are invariant in respect to particular levels of usage." Labov (1972:120-1)

For the purpose of this case study we will consider a speech to community to be as defined by Corder, "A speech community is made up of individuals who regard themselves as speaking the same language; it need have no other defining attributes." Corder (1973: 53)
 
 
 

Example of Language Write-up:
 

Speech Community:   Greek

Examples of Language Planning:

  St. George's Greek School of Halifax
  George's Greek Orthodox Church and Community Center
  38 Purcell's Cove Road, Halifax

Objective: The Greek School’s objective is to introduce young children from primary to grade 6 to the Greek language and culture.  The Greek School  maintains resources that facilitate this objective, including a library of Greek books and other multimedia cultural material.
The Greek School has as its primary objective to help our students develop the necessary facility and linguistic skills in the Greek language so that they can use it effectively in everyday situations. The substantive context within which such facility is acquired and skills are taught is provided by Hellenic culture, history, religion, geography and relevant everyday-life issues and situations.

As Language Planning:  This school makes an effort to preserve the education of the Greek language within the community. It not only teaches the language but integrates it into the primary education system.
 
 

Bloomfield, Leonard.  “A set of postulates for the science of language.”  Language 2: 153-154

Cooper, Robert L.  Language Planning and Scotia Change.  Cambridge University Press,  1989, 35

Corder, S. Pit.  Introducing applied linguistics.  Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973, 53

Eastman, Carol. M. Language Planning.  1983,  3

Karam, Frances X.  “Toward a definition of Language Planning” Advances in Language Planning.  Mouton & Co., 1971, 105

Labov, William.  Sociolinguistic patterns.  Philedalphia: U. of Pennsylvania Press,  1972, 120-21

Tollefson, James W.  Planning Language, Planning Inequality.  Longman Group Limited,  1991,  iv-16