Language Policy and Planning: An Analysis of the Themes Present in Research in Brazil¹

Política e Planejamento Linguístico: uma análise dos temas presentes em pesquisas no Brasil

ABSTRACT

The aim of this work is to present an overview of the themes discussed in the field of Language Policy and Planning over the last twenty-one years (1990-2010) in Brazil, comparing the alignment of Brazilian research with the international scenario. To that end, expanded notions of language policy were adopted (COOPER, 1989; SHIFFMAN, 1996, 2006; SPOLSKY, 2004, 2009, 2012) and a survey was carried out in order to find the number of articles in the field in a sample of abstracts from Brazilian academic journals of Linguistics and Literature. The main themes identified in this study were: educational language policies, language planning, languages in contact, diffusion of the Portuguese language, and (meta)linguistic knowledge and language policies. On the one hand, these themes show a convergence between Brazilian and international trends; however, on the other, they show a specific thematic trend in the former, that is, the interest in the constitution of (meta)linguistic knowledge in relation to language policy.

KEYWORDS:
language policy and planning; Brazil; themes; research

RESUMO

Este trabalho tem como objetivo apresentar uma visão panorâmica das temáticas presentes no campo da Política e Planejamento Linguístico nos últimos vinte e um anos (1990-2010) no Brasil, comparando o alinhamento das pesquisas brasileiras com as realizadas no cenário internacional. Para tanto, utilizamos noções expandidas de política linguística (COOPER, 1989; SHIFFMAN, 1996, 2006; SPOLSKY, 2004, 2009, 2012) e realizamos um levantamento da presença de artigos na área em uma amostra de resumos oriundos de revistas acadêmicas brasileiras de Letras/Linguística. Identificamos cinco temas principais, que foram: políticas linguísticas educacionais, planejamento linguístico, línguas em contato, difusão da língua portuguesa, e saberes (meta)linguísticos e políticas linguísticas. Por um lado, esses temas revelam a convergência entre o cenário nacional e o internacional, por outro, demonstram uma tendência temática específica do campo no Brasil, a saber, o interesse na constituição dos saberes (meta)linguísticos e sua relação com a política linguística.

PALAVRAS CHAVE:
política e planejamento linguístico; Brasil; temas; pesquisas

1 Initial considerations

Language Policy and Planning² (hereafter LPP) is a recent discipline, which began in the 1960s (RICENTO, 2000; SPOLSKY, 2012; JOHNSON, 2013). In Brazil, discussions on this field have already been the theme of several scientific events, such as the First Symposium of Glottopolitics and Regional Integration, promoted by the Graduate Program in Linguistics (PROLING) of the Federal University of Paraíba (UFPB) and by the Center of Studies in Language Policy and Education (NEPEL), held in 2015, as well as the VIII International Meeting of Language Policy Researchers, promoted by the Association of Universities of Montevideo (AUGM), held in 2017, among others.

Like any academic field, there is always a complex set of factors that involves choices concerning what is studied and how it is studied. Ricento’s work (2006), for example, presents an overview of the main theories, methods, and themes used in LPP research in the international scenario. But what about Brazil? What themes have been explored? What study perspectives can be pointed out? In other words, what is state-of-the-art in the LPP field in Brazil regarding research topics?

To answer these questions, this article aims to present an overview of the core themes from the LPP research over the past 21 years (1990-2010) in Brazil, comparing the alignment of Brazilian research to the international scenario. The selection of this period is justified by the fact that, according to Hornberger (2006), since the 1990s, there has been an intense scholarly activity in the field through the production of books and scientific articles. The decision to limit the databases to 2010 relates to the interest in providing a wide “snapshot” of research in LPP that encompasses exactly two decades, including the closing of the 20^th and the beginning of the 21^st century.

It is also worth mentioning that studies with this perspective of analysis have already been developed in Applied Linguistics and LPP, as is the case of the research by Menezes, Silva & Gomes (2009) and Passoni and Gomes (2016). While the former presents a portrait of Applied Linguistics from 1996 to 2006 in the national and international scenarios, we focus only on research in LPP. While the latter presents a mapping of theses and dissertations relating to language policy and teaching of foreign languages in Brazil from 2007 to 2011, we intend to show a mapping of the most recurrent research themes in a broader period of time (1990-2010), focusing on the abstracts of Brazilian scientific articles.

In this study, we present part of the results of a broader research project in an attempt to investigate the LPP field in Brazil based on three different dimensions: research practices, teaching practices, and the agency of Portuguese-language teachers. In the dimension of research practices, the focus was to look into themes, theories, and methodologies that have been supporting LPP research in Brazil. Here, the discussion focuses only on the most frequent themes found in articles published in Brazilian Linguistics and Literature journals.

This article is divided into three parts in addition to the initial and final considerations: in the first part, we discuss some notions of language policy; in the second part, we describe the methodological path taken to carry out this research, from the choice of Linguistics and Literature journals to the analysis of abstracts; and in the third part, we examine the corpus in order to identify the most recurrent themes in the research conducted in Brazil.

2 Language policy: in search of a definition

Definitions of “language policy” have varied over time, as changes in the geopolitical context of the world and in academic theories gradually became influential in the formation and consolidation of LPP discipline, as Ricento (2000) and others observe. The scope of this article does not include presenting a historical view of all these notions, but rather selecting three expanded definitions of language policy elaborated in three different decades that have more directly helped to shape the extended and/or multidimensional language policy approaches that, according to Johnson (2013), currently dominate this field. In the 1980s, the definition chosen is from Robert Cooper; Harold Schiffman in the 1990s; and, finally, as representative of the 2000s, the one defended by Bernard Spolsky.

Aware of the traditional focus of the field on the legislative impact national governments have on languages, Cooper (1989, p. 31, our emphasis) proposes to think of what “language planning” (most used nomenclature at the time) is according to these questions: “Who plans what for whom and how?”.

In relation to who plans, the author deviates the focus from the government to encompass other social actors, such as individuals and social movements. For him, it was the individual idealism of Eliezer Ben Yehuda that served as the initial instance of planning for the rebirth of the Hebrew language in Palestine as a symbol of the Jews’ attachment to the territory. In the same way, the feminist movement in the 1960s in the United States might have acted as a language planner, since it included in its program the reduction of the number of generic words that favored the masculine (androcentric) point of view in the written media. It considered that the use of these words would create and foster sexual stereotypes. Thus, terms such as “chairman”, “weatherman” and “draftsman” could promote the understanding that these professions would be inherently masculine and therefore ought to be replaced by less gender biased ones (COOPER, 1989).

In regard to what can be the object of language planning, the author adds another dimension of planning to what was traditionally conceived in the field. If the discussions had previously dealt only with the planning of corpus and status of a language, Cooper (1989) considers that another instance, which he called acquisition planning, should also be taken into account. Acquisition planning refers to the stage following the preparation of orthographies, dictionaries, and grammars (corpus planning), as well as the assignment of functions to a language/variety in society (status planning). It deals specifically with the diffusion of that language and/or linguistic variety mainly through its teaching in educational establishments.

In relation to the recipients of language planning (“for whom” in the question asked by COOPER, 1989), the author deconstructs the idea that this activity would be restricted to a macro-level, such as a region, a country or a set of countries, indicating that planning would also take place in microorganisms, such as families, unions, schools, churches, among others. According to the author, viewing language planning at these micro-levels would broaden and enrich the disciplinary field.

And finally, in relation to how language planning is done, Cooper (1989, p. 30-31) argues, in opposition to definitions that understand language planning as a “methodical activity of regulating and improving existing languages [...]” or “[...] systematic, theory-based activity [...]”,³ that, as language planning is an activity deeply embedded in focused social reality, it is far from following ideal and static stages of achievement.

Considering the aspects presented above, Cooper (1989, p. 45) presents his own definition of language planning, namely:

Language planning refers to deliberate efforts to influence the behavior of others with respect to the acquisition, structure, or functional allocation of their language codes. This definition neither restricts the planners to authoritative agencies, nor restricts the type of the target group, nor specifies an ideal form of planning. Further, it is couched in behavioral rather than problem-solving terms. Finally, it employs the term influence rather than change inasmuch as the former includes the maintenance or preservation of current behavior, a plausible goal of language planning, as well as the change of current behavior.

According to Sousa and Roca (2015), Cooper’s (1989) definition of language planning is more expanded than the previous ones circulating in the field because: i) he views it as an activity not only carried out by the more to the less powerful (top-down), but also opens up the possibility of it being held by less powerful instances in order to influence more powerful ones (bottom-up), so that language planners could range from organisms of an international nature to ordinary people in their daily lives; ii) he conceives that language and its varieties can be an object of intervention not only in form and function, but also in the number of its users; (iii) he considers that language planning can be aimed at either a nation or a small language community or individual; iv) he understands that this activity aims to influence linguistic behaviors and not only to solve a social “problem” of language, as it was understood at the time.

In the following decade, Schiffman (1996) published the book Linguistic culture and language policy and shed new light on this notion by postulating a symbiotic relationship between what he called the linguistic culture and the language policy of a community. According to the author:

[...] language policy is ultimately grounded in linguistic culture, that is, the set of behaviors, assumptions, cultural forms, prejudices, folk belief systems, attitudes, stereotypes, ways of thinking about language, and religio-historical circumstances associated with a particular language (SCHIFFMAN, 1996, p. 5).

Showing a different position from the North American linguistic tradition inaugurated by Edward Sapir regarding the relation between language and culture, Schiffman (1996, 2006) understands that the culture of a community is not revealed in the language, but it is, in some way, in its shared knowledge, in its consciousness, and in its common memory. This conception implies that language policy itself would be based on the broader linguistic culture of a community, so that, although there is no deterministic relation between them, the myths related to the languages circulating in that community could strongly influence their language policies.

By including the immaterial and imaginary aspects that surround language practices, Schiffman (1996, 2006) inevitably expands the scope of language policy, which is divided into two dimensions: overt and covert. Overt language policy is explicit, formalized, declared, de jure. In other words, this dimension encompasses the traditional understanding of the field that such policy is done through laws, statutes, and written statements concerning languages. On the other hand, covert language policy would be implicit, informal, latent, de facto, and it would be revealed within a framework of beliefs. It is in this latter dimension that the innovation proposed by Schiffman (1996, 2006) resides.

In this perspective, research on language policies would become unproductive if it was limited only to what is explicit. Therefore it would be necessary to understand the beliefs of a given linguistic community about its own language or its language in relation to others, among other aspects. As an illustration, Schiffman himself (1996, 2006) comments on the case of the United States, which does not explicitly state English as an official language in overt language policies, for example in the Constitution, but effectively does it through covert language policies. English has been constituted as the hegemonic language of the country, often resulting in the disregard of other languages even if they are almost as used as English, as is the case of Spanish. The author stresses that this type of language policy is by no means neutral, calling on researchers to look beyond the incompleteness of official documents, in order to observe the reality of community beliefs.

Therefore, considering the implicit and explicit aspects that this notion brings, Schiffman (1996, p. 276) defines language policy as:

[...] primarily a social construct. It may consist of various elements of an explicit nature - juridical, judicial, administrative, constitutional and/or legal language may be extant in some jurisdictions, but whether or not a polity has such explicit text, policy as a cultural construct rests primarily on other conceptual elements -belief systems, attitudes, myths - the whole complex that we are referring to as linguistic culture, which is the sum totality of ideas, values, beliefs, attitudes, prejudices, religious strictures, and all the other cultural ‘baggage’ that speakers bring to their dealings with language from their background.

Critics argued that the previous notion of linguistic ideology had already explained what the notion of “linguistic culture” intended to accomplish. Schiffman (2006) argues, however, that his theory contributes by placing the many (cultural) variables as constitutive of language policy, and not as obstacles to its implementation. Johnson (2013), in turn, criticizes the statement made by Schiffman (1996) that the elements that make up the linguistic culture are reflected in language policy when in fact they underlie it. The illustration provided by Johnson (2013) is that there can be no causal relation between a given language policy and the intentions of its creator(s). In his words, “[...] often, the intentions will be multiple and the creation (as is especially the case with policies created by political bodies) will be characterized by disagreement, contention, and compromise” (JOHNSON, 2013, p. 232).

Continuing the expansion of the notion of language policy, Spolsky published Language policy: key topics in Sociolinguistics in 2004. According to Sousa and Roca (2015), in this book, Spolsky makes language policy more autonomous, since his notion no longer depends on elements coming from another theoretical construct, such as the linguistic culture proposed by Schiffman (1996, 2006).

For Spolsky (2004, 2009, 2012), the following three components constitute language policy: practices, beliefs, and language management. Practices are the linguistic choices that the members of a given community carry out in their daily lives, such as choosing a specific variety to perform a particular communicative function, choosing a linguistic variant to suit the interlocutor, choosing what variety to use in order to show or hide an identity, among others. Spolsky (2012) argues that these practices represent the real language policy of a speech community. One example of language practice is that, although official educational documents in Brazil recommend to start the teaching of English as a foreign language at the beginning of the second phase of Elementary School, it is common to see preschool and kindergarten children learning English as a second language in private schools, especially bilingual ones.⁴

The second component of language policy is related to beliefs about language(s), sometimes called an ideology. Beliefs represent the values attributed to languages, varieties, and linguistic variants, as well as to the importance given to these values. As Spolsky (2009, p. 4) comments, “The status of a variant or variety derives from how many people use it and the importance of the users, and the social and economic benefits a speaker can expect by using it.” A very lively example in Brazilian everyday life is the entrenched belief that Portuguese is a difficult language to speak and write, thus attributing the highest status to the standard form of the language.

The third component of language policy corresponds to what is traditionally called “planning” in the field of LPP. Spolsky (2009, 2012), however, prefers to call this dimension “management”, defining it as the conscious realization of efforts by someone - a group, a government or by those who judge themselves as having the authority to do so - in order to modify the practices or linguistic beliefs in a given social domain (family, school, church...). An illustration of how language management spreads to various sectors of society is the deliberate decision of some families to hire foreign nannies who teach their first language to their children.⁵

These three dimensions proposed by Spolsky (2009, 2012) were later named by Bonacina-Pugh (2012), respectively, as declared, perceived, and practiced language policies. We hereafter use this terminology in this paper.

Spolsky’s (2004, 2009, 2012) notion of language policy solves the theoretical interdependence between linguistic culture and language policy present in the work of Schiffman (1996, 2006), since what this latter author defines as linguistic culture constitutes one of the dimensions of Spolsky’s language policy. According to Johnson (2013, p. 05-06),

The idea that language policies are engendered by beliefs and ideologies within a speech community is very similar to Schiffman’s notion of the close connection between language policies and linguistic culture. The difference seems to be that, while Schiffman avers that language policy is grounded in language beliefs and ideologies, Spolsky portrays such beliefs and ideologies as language policy. As well, he includes language practices, not occurring as a result of, or resulting in, language policies, but as language policies in and of themselves.

We understand that Spolsky’s (2004, 2009, 2012) multidimensional notion is a refinement of what was proposed by Schiffman (1996), as can be seen in Table 1.

TABLE 1
Comparison between Spolsky’s and Schiffman’s notions of language policy

Language Policy in Schiffman	Language Policy in Spolsky
OvertLanguage Policy	Declared Language Policies
Language Policy as a reflection of linguistic culture	Perceived Language Policies
CovertLanguage Policy as a product of linguistic culture	Practiced Language Policies

According to Sousa and Roca (2015), Spolsky’s (2004, 2009, 2012) explanation of the language management dimension is consistent with Cooper’s (1989) definition of language planning, since both authors refer to deliberate efforts that can be undertaken by individuals, groups, institutions or governments, to change the linguistic behavior of others. Also, in both definitions language policy is seen as a behavior modification and not as problem-solving, although this understanding may be implicit insofar as “influencing behaviors” may be a result of finding problems. However, Spolsky (2004, 2009, 2012) goes further on, expanding what can be understood as language policy to include the practiced and perceived policies as well.

In this section, we discussed three central notions of language policy, highlighting how the concept broadened over the course of three decades (1980-2000). The discussion started with a one-dimensional view (COOPER, 1989) and moved to a multidimensional one (SPOLSKY, 2004, 2009, 2012), placing Schiffman’s definition (1996, 2006) in the middle of this continuum. All off these definitions, especially Spolsky’s one, considerably extend the scope of research within the field of LPP. This work adopts his notion of language policy as the guideline to the analysis of the most recurrent themes present in the articles published in Brazilian journals.

3 Data collection and analysis: the description of a course of action

Aiming to present an overview of the themes explored in the LPP field over the past 21 years (1990-2010) in Brazil, we carried out a survey of articles by reading the abstracts of Brazilian academic journals in Linguistics and Literature, classified according to their stratum: Qualis⁶ A1, A2, B1, and B2. To identify which journals we would select, their field and stratum, we checked the available search system in the Capes (Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel) website. The search then continued in the journals’ websites, and we consulted only those which were available online and allowed free access to their content. At the end, we visited 249 (two hundred and forty-nine) academic journals, of which 36 (thirty-six) were classified in stratum A1, 64 (sixty-four) in stratum A2, 56 (fifty-six) in stratum B1, and 93 (ninety-three) in stratum B2.

After selecting the journals, we began the process of collecting abstracts. To that end, we established a criterion according to which we chose the abstracts only if they had at least one of the following keywords: language policy (or policies), language planning, Glottopolitics, policy of languages, and of the like. These could appear in the title of the paper, in the abstract, or in the keywords. We discarded articles that did not have abstracts, even if they were about language policy, as well as abstracts that dealt with themes in the LPP field, but did not contain any of the above referred keywords. We identified the selected abstracts with the letter R and an Arabic number (R01, R02 ...). The ultimate corpus presented the following characteristics shown in Graph 1, considering the variables year, stratum, and publication period.

GRAPH 1
Sample of selected abstracts⁷

For data analysis, we read the abstracts in order to identify their research theme. However, not always it was possible to make this recognition through abstracts, since some could relate to more than one theme. It was necessary then to elaborate criteria that would help us to define the thematic category in which we should insert them. Thus, we established the following ones: the identification of the research objective and focus that had more affinity with the defined themes; and the presence of keywords related to the selected themes. These criteria were used individually or as a complement, depending on each case.

It is also worth noting that during the process of data analysis, we used the book Language policy: theory and method, edited by Ricento (2006), as the leading reference to compare the alignment of Brazilian research with the international scenario. His work presents an overview of the main themes, theories, and methodologies used in LPP. The article of Baldauf Jr. (2012), which provides a brief insight into the development and state-of-the-art of the field, was also a reference, as well as the book Language policy by Johnson (2013), which discusses the history of the field and presents a detailed overview of the theories, concepts, research methods, and results found within it. From there, it was possible to identify similarities and peculiarities of Brazilian research in relation to the research carried out in other countries.

4 The voice that emanates from the data: themes present in Brazilian research

Based on the data analysis, we found five main themes: educational language policies, language planning, languages in contact, diffusion of the Portuguese language, and (meta)linguistic knowledge related to language policy. These results are shown below in Table 2, in ascending order of interest, thus revealing the diversity of topics explored in the area of LPP in Brazil in the period from 1990 to 2010.

TABLE 2
Themes present in Language Policy and Planning in Brazil

Theme	Number of articles
Educational language policies	17
Language planning	07
Languages in contact	05
Diffusion of the Portuguese language	04
(Meta)linguistic knowledge and language policy	03
Others	10
Total	46

In the category “educational language policies”, papers analyze the policies of language teaching in Brazil and in other countries, and their implications for the teaching of second and foreign language, as well as for the training of teachers. The following excerpt illustrates an article about how the government of Argentina manages languages: “The paper describes the language teaching policy developed in Argentina in relation to the teaching of Spanish as a first and second language and the teaching of European and Aboriginal languages.” (R30).⁸ The teaching of foreign languages in Brazil was a recurring subject in this group, which corroborates the mapping carried out by Passoni and Gomes (2016) in Brazilian theses and dissertations from 2007 to 2011. Attention is also given to the teaching of English and Spanish, especially considering the conjunctures of a political, economic, and social nature that involve the insertion of these languages into the Brazilian educational environment: English as the world’s lingua franca (LACOSTE, 2005) and Spanish as a regional integration language (ARNOUX; NOTHSTEIN, 2014). The excerpts below illustrate some of these works.

The objective of this work is to discuss the possibility of establishing a relationship between the English language policy in force in Brazil and the exam to enter university. (R38)

The text addresses the history of presence/absence of Spanish as a foreign language (S/FL) in Brazil, marked by a path that confirms the lack of commitment to a policy that, in fact, has been dedicated to the construction of a dialectical relationship between Brazil and the Hispanic countries. (R28)

In this category, we identified papers that explore educational policies for the deaf, indigenous peoples and descendants of immigrants in Brazil, as well as those promoted by the Southern Common Market (Mercosur) countries, as can be seen below. Some papers also deal with bilingual education and the teaching of minority languages.⁹

In this article, the structuring of public policy for the education of deaf people in the state of Santa Catarina is presented with its propositions, the decisions, and the directions that the implementation of this policy is taking. (R26)

This work aims at analyzing how the bilingual (Portuguese/German) teaching institutionalization has become effective in the context of the municipal public education network of the city of Pomerode, in the State of Santa Catarina, from the creation of five bilingual classes (Portuguese/German) in the city. (R24)

This paper is part of the academic area of Sociolinguistics, within the line of research “Language Policy”, and intends, from the official documents, to understand the language policies of MERCOSUR for the block and the border area, answering the question “which language policy bases the implementation of the Project entitled Bilingual Intercultural Schools at the Border?” (R34)

In short, this category is comprised by studies that explore the educational context as a space for the investigation of language policies. It is in line with one of the domains¹⁰ presented by Spolsky (2012) for the investigation of language policies: the educational institutions. This theme is considered by Baldauf Jr. (2012) as one of the four fundamental areas within the LPP field and by Johnson (2013) as a subarea of fruitful research. Without intending to be exhaustive, it is possible to cite as examples the books Language-in-education policies: the discursive construction of intercultural relations, by Liddicoat (2013); Language policy in educational: critical issues, by Tollefson (2013); Negotiating language policies in schools: educators as policy makers, by Menken and García (2010), among others. Ricento (2006) also highlights the educational language policies for minority languages as one of the thematic areas of interest in the international scenario, a line of research also present in the Brazilian studies.

In the analysis, the theme of “educational language policies” had the greatest number of studies (17 papers). For Ricento and Hornberger (1996), language policies in education constitute “the center of the onion” and a fundamental subarea within the LPP field of research. In our view, the importance of this theme relates to the fact that these policies can significantly interfere in the linguistic ecology of a society and influence the linguistic future of a given community. Besides these reasons, they also play the role of selecting which languages and linguistic varieties are identified by society as important to be taught and learned, and which languages and varieties should be silenced.

Brazilian research in this subarea explored macro-language policies, converging in part with research conducted abroad. Future investigations could explore agency issues, as highlighted by Baldauf Jr. (2012). For this author, the agency of individuals, when generalized within a given community, may interfere with national language policies. One of the cases cited by Baldauf Jr. (2012) to illustrate this statement is Singapore in which many speakers of different Chinese dialects prefer to switch to English rather than Mandarin, despite the intense government investment in this heritage language.

Another theme present in Brazilian research is “language planning”. Using Cooper’s (1989) terminology, this category encompasses works that report, analyze, or propose different kinds of language planning (status, corpus, and acquisition planning) or discuss the genesis or impact of such planning, as emphasized in the following excerpts.

[...] in this article, we intend to suggest ways of implementing a globalizing policy aimed at linguistic pluralism […] (R08) (our emphasis)

The aim of this work is to evaluate the new Orthographic Agreement of the Portuguese Language in a historical context that demands goals of simplification and unification in the various orthographic fixations that have happened along history. [...] (R09) (our emphasis)

In this paper, the author presents an analysis of Guinea-Bissau’s language policy and language planning in the context of a broader study. (R13) (our emphasis)

This theme competes with two of the basic areas presented by Baldauf Jr. (2004) within the LPP practical activity, which are corpus and status planning. The convergence between the interest of policymakers and researchers provides evidence that practice and theory may well run in line with one another. In fact, Brazilian researchers not only analyze the created language plans, but also present planning proposals. As a practical activity, language policy encompasses different actors, and linguists do not have, a priori, a privileged position. However, from the disciplinary field, researchers can contribute to the evaluation, implementation, and suggestion of different language policies. Thus, the relation between the practical activity and the disciplinary field can be better explained by Ricento (2006, p.11), when he states that:

[...] LP is not just an exercise of philosophical inquiry; it is interested in addressing social problems that often involve language, to one degree or another, and in proposing realistic remedies. Yet this search for answers does not begin in a theoretical or methodological vacuum; researchers begin with assumptions about “how the world works” and, in the optimal situation, engage reflexively with the topics they¹¹ choose to investigate, questioning and examining their epistemological and theoretical assumptions on a range of matters as they try to understand phenomena of which they partake and by which their views are formed.

We also identified “languages in contact” as a theme present in the LPP field in Brazil. In this category, papers discuss language policies derived from contact relations between communities that use different languages and analyze the functions performed by these languages in the communities, the causes, consequences, and problems arising from this context. This is because contact between languages is never harmless, since it is usually constituted by colonization or conquest, thus promoting asymmetrical power relations between languages (JOHNSON, 2013). In short, this group includes research related to language contact in regions bordering Brazil, contact between Portuguese and indigenous languages and between Portuguese and foreign languages. The following excerpts illustrate some abstracts in this category.

In this communication, we make a brief consideration of the expansion of Portuguese in Brazilian territory, conquering indigenous, African and immigrant speakers. However, our focus is on the Spanish/Portuguese contact along the borders with the Ibero-American countries, highlighting the increase in the use of the two languages due to the increase in commercial activities because of the Mercosur agreements. (R17) (our emphasis)

In this paper I analyze the sociolinguistic situation of a bilingual community whose first members immigrated from North America to a rural area located in the southwest region of the state of Goiás thirty years ago. My intention was to understand the role of English and Portuguese, the two languages spoken in the community, with the aim of identifying the linguistic domains that these languages occupy, the linguistic attitudes of their speakers and the language policies that the group adopts. (R15) (our emphasis)

Once again, we observe the convergence between the research themes recurrent in Brazil and internationally. Johnson (2013), for example, cites some studies that investigate the contact of languages in different contexts, such as school, religion, business, and health care.

In this mapping, we also identified the theme “diffusion of the Portuguese language”, which encompasses studies that analyze different actions of diffusion and promotion of this language and that investigate the role of Portuguese in different geopolitical contexts. We hypothesize that the greater visibility of this topic relates to the emergence and strengthening of certain official policies, such as: the creation of the Division of Portuguese Language Promotion (DPLP) in 2003; the increasing number of leitorados¹² (32 in 2004, 30 in 2006, 47 in 2008, and 68 in 2011); the creation of the Portuguese Language Museum in 2006; and the International University of Afro-Brazilian Lusophony in 2011 (SILVA, D., 2013). In addition, others policies have had an impact on the Portuguese language, such as: the Treaty of Asunción (1991), which intended to create a Southern Common Market (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay); and the shaping of a lusophone discourse, initially materialized with the creation of the Community of Portuguese Speaking Countries (CPLP) in 1996 and more recently with the creation of the International Institute of the Portuguese Language in 2002 (FREIXO, 2009). The following excerpts illustrate some of the research in this category.

This article makes considerations about the language policy of the Brazilian government in light of the Leitorado Program in Manchester (England). (R01)

This paper discusses the status and weight of the Portuguese language as the official language of the Southern Common Market (Mercosur). It presents policy proposals and language planning, established for the countries of the Block and discusses the implementation of such proposals, as actions to be included in the AULP - Portuguese Language Universities Association. (R03)

This line of research converges with the suggestion made by Baldauf Jr. (2012) that the processes of globalization and internationalization influence language policies, especially educational ones. The international promotion of Portuguese in Latin America, for example, is an illustration of the influence of Mercosur in the creation of linguistic policies for the diffusion and promotion of Portuguese abroad.

Research establishing a dialogue between (meta)linguistic knowledge and language policy, having different objects of investigation, such as the spelling agreement and the Celpe-Bras proficiency exam, were also identified, as the following excerpt illustrates.

The objective of this work is to verify which place CELPE-Bras (Certificate of Proficiency of Portuguese for Foreigners) occupies in the History of Linguistic Ideas of Brazil. Such possibility is seen from the current moment of Language Policy developed by the Brazilian State, which makes the Brazilian language and culture appear on the international scenario through this exam. (R45)

Exploring the relation of language policy and (meta)linguistic knowledge embodied in linguistic instruments (such as grammars, dictionaries, language tests, among others) indicate a specific trend in research carried out by Brazilian LPP researchers.

Regarding LPP’s interface with other disciplinary fields, the development of a dialog between Language Policy and Lexicology and Terminology is considered a challenge to be faced by Brazilian researchers, an approach that has already been developed in the international scenario. The work of Antia (2000) Terminology and language planning: an alternative framework of practice and discourse is an example of this perspective of study that, according to the author, can be denominated as language planning geared toward the management of terminology. With some points of contact but with a different theoretical-methodological approach, the works of Lauria (2010a, 2010b, 2011) take dictionaries as the object of study in a Glottopolitics’¹³ approach.

In addition to these themes, we created the category “others” to gather papers that discussed language policy issues but did not fit into the previously identified categories. Papers difficult to classify in a specific theme, or research whose themes appeared once or twice, are also part of this category. Within this, we identified a sub-theme and named it as “theoretical aspects”: they are articles that discuss theoretical notions related to the area of LPP, as illustrated in the following excerpt.

This essay revisits the course of sociolinguistic theories, noting the way in which they have dealt with issues that are important to this field of study, such as ‘language attitude’, ‘language discrimination’, ‘politically correct’, ‘diglossia’, and others. Along the text, the author reflects on the relations between the speaker and the language in the theories addressed, as well as on the political gestures present in the research and the language policies sustained in such theories. (R40) (our emphasis)

Another sub-theme present in this group is “minority languages”, with articles that reflect language policies for indigenous languages, aiming to strengthen and revitalize them. The following excerpt shows a study in this category.

In this work, we will reflect on some of the factors involved in the elaboration and conduction of language policies/language planning necessary for the strengthening of indigenous languages. In this course, I emphasize the importance of local language planning and present some experiences aimed at the revitalization of indigenous languages in our country and abroad. (R22) (our emphasis)

The topic of minority languages has become very profitable within LPP internationally. Ricento (2006) assigns to it three of the seven chapters of his book on the main thematic areas in LPP, indicating connections between language policy and the rights of the minorities (MAY, 2006), language policy and the education of language minorities (PAULSTON; HEIDEMANN, 2006), and language policy and sign languages (REAGAN, 2006).

It can be inferred that interest in the study of language policies related to minority languages converges with postmodern reflections on the paradigm of monolingualism (which is anchored in defense of language homogeneity and national integration) and on the paradigm of plurilingualism and multiculturalism (which is anchored in the defense of the linguistic and cultural diversity). In general, philosophical arguments supporting the defense of minority languages are based on human (and linguistic) rights or on moral or political justifications, such the protection of linguistic diversity as a benefit to humanity (RÉAUME; PINTO, 2012). Considering these philosophical approaches, investigations around these language policies are beginning to appear in research in Brazil and gaining space in the international scenario.

Another sub-theme in the category “Others” is “language policy and identity”, with one article that addresses the relationship between language policy and ethnic identity. This research analyzes the role of indigenous languages in the process of (re)constructing or affirming the linguistic identity of a particular ethnic group, as shown in: “This paper aims to describe and discuss the impact of a policy of revitalization of indigenous languages in the processes of (re)construction of the linguistic identity of a group of teachers from Acre and southwestern Amazonas.” (R20).

In the international scenario, language policy and ethnic identity is a topic of interest (GARCÍA, 2012), acknowledging that a language symbolizes and represents an ethnic identity and recognizing ethnic identities and hybrid language practices. In these approaches, neither the notion of language nor the notion of identity is considered as fixed.

The discussion between language policy and national identity is also presented by Ricento (2006) as one of the main themes within the LPP field, with researchers looking into nationalist projects and the role of languages in this process; the phenomenon of globalization, transnationalization and the “bankruptcy” of these projects (or the reallocation of powers - from the State to the supra States); the determination of language policies within a State by influence of supranational bodies; the relations between corpus, status, and acquisition planning and nationalist projects (BLOMMAERT, 2006; WRIGHT, 2012), among other topics. The fact is that political-linguistic processes based on nationalist ideals are primarily ideological processes, so that when investigating them the researcher necessarily investigates these dominant ideologies in different historical periods and in different States.

In “Others”, we identified the sub-theme “Language policy and new media”. The multidimensional notions of language policy, the understanding of different agents, and the social interaction in a more extended “domain” allowed the investigation of other subjects, as is the case of the language used in internet. According to Bres (2015, p. 310), “Among the greater range of domains identifiable as potential settings of language policy activity, the new media presents a compelling setting for investigating language policies,” because it does not constitute a conventional domain of research in the field of LPP (KELLY-HOLMES, 2015).¹⁴

This sub-theme constitutes a new field for Brazilian researchers, since it has been growing in the international scenario (BRES, 2015). One example of this statement is the publishing of a number of the leading journal Language Policy entitled Language Policies on Social Network Sites in 2015.

We also identified in the data a survey that addressed “Linguistic Rights”, presented by Ricento (2006) as a recurrent theme in the international scenario. In Brazilian research this constitutes a topic to be explored, mainly because the 1988 Federal Constitution and other official documents present indigenous people as entitled to intercultural and bilingual schooling in their own languages and in the official language of Brazil (Portuguese). More recently, there has been a trend of co-officializing indigenous languages in some municipalities, granting more rights to these peoples to access public services in their own indigenous languages (see SILVA, F., 2013; MARTINES, 2014). In our view, linguistic rights constitute a fundamental theme within the field of LPP, because: i) situations of language contact can generate demands for the protection of linguistic rights of minorities; ii) the advancement of globalization promotes the challenge of the diffusion of lingua franca and the linguistic right to have access to this language; iii) it involves issues of citizenship and national identity, among other reasons.

Finally, articles in the category “Others” dealt with distinct themes that did not fit into the categories previously elaborated and did not present convergence with the themes explored on the international scenario.

5 Final considerations

This work proposed to present an overview of the recurring themes in the LPP field over the past 21 years (1990-2010) in Brazil, comparing the alignment of Brazilian research with the international scenario. To that end, we carried out a survey in order to find articles in a sample of abstracts published in Brazilian Linguistics and Literature journals classified in stratum A1, A2, B1, and B2. After analyzing the corpus, we found that the area is still developing in the country, since over the 20-year period we identified only 46 abstracts. We observed that in the 1990s the field practically did not exist in Brazil, since only three articles were published in 10 years. From the 2000s on, we noticed a growth, which peaked in the years of 2009 and 2010, as can be seen in Graph 2.

GRAPH 2
Overview of LPP publications in the period of 1990-2010 in Brazil¹⁵

Although our aim in this article is not questioning the causes that favored this development, it is possible to raise some hypotheses, such as: the growth of graduate programs in Language and Literature or Linguistics in Brazil; the creation or expansion of journals, lines of research, disciplines or research groups that explore this field; and/or the emergence of interlocution between national and international institutions and researchers that investigate LPP. Even considering this recent growth, it is possible to observe a partial thematic alignment between what is being researched in Brazil and abroad. To reach this conclusion, this article is supported by the work presented Ricento (2006), Baldauf Jr. (2012), Johnson (2013) and others.

In our analysis, we identified five main themes: educational language policies, language planning, languages in contact, diffusion of the Portuguese language, and (meta)linguistic knowledge in relation to language policy. Based on the identified themes and the research carried out internationally, we can think of some challenges ahead, such as: i) research on the agency of teachers in the processes of interpretation and appropriation of top-down language policies; ii) greater exploration of language policy and linguistic rights, language policies and new media, language policies and (national and ethnic) identity; iii) research on the connections between macro- and micro-language policies; iv) construction of interface between LPP and other disciplines, since the former is an interdisciplinary, transdisciplinary (and, not to mention, indisciplinary) field.

Other future directions of research are suggested by Baldauf Jr. (2012), who presents a set of thematic challenges to be faced by researchers in LPP. The topics indicated by Baldauf Jr. relate to processes of globalization and internationalization, such as: language policies, migrations and new minorities; deconstruction of monolingual ideologies; micro-nature language policies; language choices and/or linguistic varieties as a means of instruction.

The present study has limitations due to the selected methodology: the period encompassed, the selected sample, the authors chosen to support the comparison between the alignment of research in Brazil with international contexts. However, through this research it was possible to capture a “snapshot” of the LPP themes investigated in Brazil and contribute to the understanding of the historical and current state of the field.

The results indicate that the field of LPP was almost non-existent in Brazil during the 1990s, becoming more relevant at the beginning of the first decade of the 21^st century. Thus, they show a divergence in the historical constitution of the field between the Brazilian and the broader international scenario, which, according to Ricento (2000), began to take shape in the 1960s. Despite that, both scenarios show a current thematic convergence regarding educational language policies, language planning, languages in contact, and international diffusion of languages. A singularity found in Brazilian research was a thematic interest in the (meta)linguistic knowledge embodied in linguistic instruments (such as grammars, dictionaries, language tests, etc.) as a language policy in itself.

As to the relation between LPP and Applied Linguistics, we consider that having research focused on language policy strengthens Applied Linguistics as an expanding area, going beyond the concern with language teaching and learning to also encompass the interest in the human intervention on language, as well as its implications on society. It is now assumed that Applied Linguistics is a wide area concerned with social issues in which language takes a constitutive stand. As such, knowing what have been the topics of interest and discussion in LPP also helps to understand what have been the most recent developments in Brazilian Applied Linguistics, to the extent that looking into the LPP study of diverse themes according to diverse research theories ratify the “indisciplinary” nature of the area (MOITA LOPES, 2006).

Increasing research on language policy in the light of diversified research theories will allow agents across different stances (especially in education, such as teachers, school principals, professors, among others) assess the impact of language policy decisions in their daily lives, as well as realize their own roles in the process of interpretation and appropriation of these policies. In addition, it can unveil how language policy relates to broader social, economic and political interests.

The results discussed in this paper can constitute a source of consultation for those interested in LPP. It may also contribute to a self-knowledge within the field, unveiling what Brazilian scholars regard as priority research themes, as well as some challenges that need to be faced. This work allowed us to glimpse the possibility of elaborating other studies analyzing the theories and methodologies recurrent in the Brazilian research, or analyzing the structure of the collaboration networks in the production of knowledge in the Brazilian field of LPP.

We believe that research that explores the self-knowledge of a field allows us to understand the trends and future paths of research. In other words, where we are currently and to where we are going in the LPP field.

References

• ANTIA, B. E. Terminology and Language Planning: An Alternative Framework of Practice and Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publish Company, 2000. 265 p. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1075/tlrp.2
  » https://doi.org/10.1075/tlrp.2
• ARNOUX, E. N. La Glotopolítica: transformaciones de um campo disciplinario. In: ______. Lenguajes: teorías y prácticas. Buenos Aires: Instituto Superior del Profesorado “Joaquín V. González”, Secretaría de Educación, GCBA, 2000. p. 3-27.
• ARNOUX, E. N.; NOTHSTEIN, S. Glotopolítica, integración regional sudamericana y pan-hispanismo. In: ______. (ed.). Temas de Glotopolítica: integración regional sudamericana y pan-hispanismo. Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires: Biblos, 2014. p. 9-29.
• BALDAUF Jr., R. B. Introduction - Language Planning: Where Have We Been? Where Might We Be Going? Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada, Belo Horizonte, v. 12, n. 2, p. 233-248, 2012. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-63982012000200002
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1984-63982012000200002
• BLOMMAERT, J. Language Policy and National Identity. In: RICENTO, T. (ed.). An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method. Malden; Oxford: Blackwell Publish, 2006. p. 238-254.
• BONACINA-PUGH, F. Researching ‘Praticed Language Policies’: Insights from Conversation Analysis. Language Policy, [S.l], v. 11, n. 3, p. 213-234, 2012. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-012-9243-x
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-012-9243-x
• COOPER, R. L. Planning and Social Change. New York: Cambridge, 1989. 216 p.
• BRES, J. Introduction: Language Policies on Social Network Sites. Language Policy, [S.l], v. 14, n. 4, p. 309-314, Nov. 2015. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-015-9368-9
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10993-015-9368-9
• FREIXO, A. Minha pátria é a língua portuguesa: a construção da ideia da lusofonia em Portugal. Rio de Janeiro: Apicuri, 2009. 202 p.
• GARCIA, O. Ethnic Identity and Language Policy. In: SPOLSKY, B. (ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. p. 79-99. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511979026.007
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511979026.007
• HORNBERGER, N. H. Frameworks and Models in Language Policy and Planning. In: RICENTO, T. (ed.). An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method. Malden; Oxford: Blackwell Publish, 2006. p. 24-41.
• JOHNSON, D. C. Language Policy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. 291 p.
• LAURIA, D. Lengua y nación en la lexicografía argentina de fines del siglo XIX y principios del XX: análisis de los mecanismos de exemplificación y citación. Res Diachronicae, Sevilla, v. 8, p. 47-70, 2010a.
• LAURIA, D. Los diccionarios de indigenismos y de regionalismos en la década de 1880 em la Argentina: um análisis glotopolítico. In: CONGRESO DE LA SOCIEDAD ARGENTINA DE LINGÜÍSTICA, 12., 2010, Mendoza. Proceedings [...] Mendonza: Facultad de Filosofia y Letras, Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, 2010b.
• LAURIA, D. Apuntes para una historia de la producción lexicográfica monolíngue em la Argentina: etapas del processo de diccionarización y modalidades diccionarísticas entre 1870 y 1910. Boletín de Filología, Santiago de Chile, Tomo XLVI, v. 46, n. 1, p. 105-151, 2011. Doi: https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-93032011000100004
  » https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-93032011000100004
• KELLY-HOLMES, H. Analyzing Language Policies in New Media. In: HULT, F. M.; JOHNSON, D. C. (ed.). Research Methods in Language Policy and Planning. USA/UK: Wiley Blackwell, 2015. p. 130-139. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118340349.ch12
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118340349.ch12
• LACOSTE, Y. Por uma abordagem geopolítica da difusão do inglês. In: LACOSTE, Y.; RAJAGOPALAN, K. (ed.). A geopolítica do inglês. São Paulo: Parábola Editorial, 2005. p. 7-11.
• LAGARES, X. C. O galego em seu labirinto: breve análise glotopolítica. Letras, Santa Maria, v. 21, n. 42, p. 97-128, jan. /jun. 2011.
• LIDDICOAT, A. J. Language-in-Education Policies: The Discursive Construction of Intercultural Relations. Bristol; Buffalo; Toronto: Multilingual Matters, 2013. 245 p. Doi: https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847699152
  » https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847699152
• MARTINES, L. C. A. A política linguística de cooficialização da língua guarani em Tacuru/MS e seus desdobramentos políticos, sociais e pedagógicos. 2014. 205p. Thesis (M.A. in Languages) - Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa, Ponta Grossa, 2014.
• MAY, S. Language policy and minority rights. In: RICENTO, T. (ed.). An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method. Malden; Oxford: Blackwell Publish, 2006. p. 255-272.
• MENKEN, K.; GARCÍA, O. (ed.). Negotiating Language Policies in Schools: Educators as Policy Makers. New York: Routledge, 2010. 278 p. Doi: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203855874
  » https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203855874
• MENEZES, V.; SILVA, M. M.; GOMES, I. F. Sessenta anos de Linguística Aplicada: de onde viemos e para onde vamos. In: PEREIRA, R. C.; ROCA, P. (ed.). Linguística aplicada: um caminho com diferentes acessos. São Paulo: Contexto, 2009. p. 25-50.
• MOITA LOPES, L. P. Introdução: uma linguística aplicada mestiça e ideológica: interrogando o campo como linguista aplicado. In: ______. (ed.). Por uma linguística aplicada indisciplinar. São Paulo: Parábola, 2006. p. 13-44.
• PASSONI, T. P.; GOMES, E. A. Políticas e planejamento linguísticos: mapeamento das pesquisas sobre ensino de línguas estrangeiras modernas no cenário nacional. Revista Virtual de Estudos da Linguagem, [S.l.], v. 14, n. 26, p. 241-270, 2016.
• PAULSTON, C. B.; HEIDEMANN, K. Language Policies and the Education of Linguistic Minorities. In: RICENTO, T. (ed.). An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method. Malden; Oxford: Blackwell Publish, 2006. p. 292-310.
• REAGAN, T. Language Policy and Sign Languages. In: RICENTO, T. (ed.). An Introduction to Language Policy: Theory and Method. Malden; Oxford: Blackwell Publish, 2006. p. 329-345.
• RÉAUME, D.; PINTO, M. Philosophy of Language Policy. In: SPOLSKY, B. (ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. p. 37-58. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511979026.005
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511979026.005
• RICENTO, T. Historical and Theoretical Perspectives in Language Policy and Planning. Journal of Sociolinguistics, [S.l.], v. 4, n. 2, p. 196-213, 2000. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00111
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9481.00111
• RICENTO, T. (ed.). Language Policy: Theory and Method. Malden; Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006. 291 p.
• RICENTO, T.; HORNBERGER, N. Unpeeling the Onion: Language Planning and Policy and the ELT Professional. TESOL Quartely, [S.l.], v. 30, n. 3, p. 401-427, Autumn 1996. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/3587691
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/3587691
• SCHIFFMAN, H. F. Linguistic Culture and Language Policy. London; New York: Routledge, 1996. 351 p.
• SCHIFFMAN, H. F. Language policy and linguistic culture. In: RICENTO, T. (ed.). Language Policy: Theory and Method. Malden; Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2006. p. 111-125.
• SILVA, D. B. De flor do Lácio a língua global. Jundiaí: Paco Editorial, 2013. 246 p.
• SILVA, F. S. A lei de cooficialização das línguas tukano, nheengatu e baniwa em São Gabriel da Cachoeira: questões sobre política linguística em context multilíngue. 2013. 193p. Thesis (M.A. in Letters) - Universidade Federal do Amazonas, Manaus, 2013.
• SOUSA, S. C. T. de; ROCA, M. del P. Introdução para uma compreensão ampliada de política linguística. In: ______. (ed.). Políticas linguísticas: declaradas, praticadas e percebidas. João Pessoa: Editora da UFPB, 2015. p. 7-32.
• SPOLSKY, B. Language Practices, Ideology and Beliefs, and Management and Planning. In: ______. Language Policy: Key Topics in Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. p. 1-15. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615245.002
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615245.002
• SPOLSKY, B. Towards a Theory of Language Management. In: ______. Language Management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. p. 1-9. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511626470.001
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511626470.001
• SPOLSKY, B. What is Language Policy? In: ______. (ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. p. 3-15. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511979026.003
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511979026.003
• TOLLEFSON, J. W. (ed.). Language Policy in Education: Critical Issues. 2. ed. New York: Routledge, 2013. 316 p.
• WRIGHT, S. Language Policy, the Nation and Nationalism. In: SPOLSKY, B. (ed.). The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. p. 59-78. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511979026.006
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511979026.006

• 1
  This article is part of the results obtained in the research project funded by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPQ) entitled “Language Policy in Brazil: research practices, teaching practices and teacher’s agency” carried out from 2015 to 2017 (PROC. Nº 454034/2014-8).
• 2
  Although there is no consensus in naming the field, we adopted the terminology used by Ricento (2006) and Johnson (2013), which is Language Policy and Planning.
• 3
  Cooper (1989) elaborates his notion of language planning from a debugged analysis of twelve definitions.
• 4
  An example of related news is available at: https://oglobo.globo.com/rio/bairros/para-garantir-proficiencia-em-ingles-alunos-sao-alfabetizados-na-lingua-estrangeira-antes-do-portugues-1-22003446. Retrieved on: 23^rd May 2018.
• 5
  Available at: http://ultimosegundo.ig.com.br/mundo/nyt/maes-americanas-buscam-babas-que-falam-lingua-estrangeira/n1237755250347.html. Retrieved on: May 23, 2018.
• 6
  Qualis is a set of procedures used by the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES), a government agency linked to the Brazilian Ministry of Education, which aims to stratify scientific production in graduation. Qualis classifies and evaluates the quality of academic means used to spread scientific publishing in graduate programs. For example, Brazilian journals are classified in A1, A2, B2, B3, B4, and C, of which A1 is the higher stratum. Available at: http://www.capes.gov.br/acessoainformacao/perguntas-frequentes/avaliacao-da-pos-graduacao/7422-qualis. Retrieved on: Oct. 9, 2018.
• 7
  On the horizontal axis, the letter and numerals (A1, A2...) correspond to the Qualis stratum of the journals in which the papers were published. On the vertical axis, the numerals correspond to the number of abstracts found.
• 8
  Hereafter, the quotes shown are translations of excerpts taken from the original abstracts we analysed.
• 9
  The term ‘minority language’ here means:“[...] those subjected to the minority condition, taking into account that this condition does not concern strictly quantitative aspects, but mainly qualitative aspects, in relation to the place their speakers occupy in the social structure and with the social functions that these languages can perform” (LAGARES, 2011, p. 101).
• 10
  To Spolsky (2009), the notion of domain was coined by Fishman and corresponds to a social space that is characterized by the presence of participants, location, and topic.
• 11
  The author is referring to researchers when using “they”.
• 12
  The Leitorado Program funds teachers interested in disseminating Brazilian language and culture in foreign universities.
• 13
  Glottopolitics has some similarities with Language Policy, but it differs from the latter mainly because of its analyses of metalinguistic practices in linguistic instruments (dictionaries, grammars etc.), based on the strong articulation of language and history, and on the choice of Discourse Analysis as the analysis tool of texts and discourses (ARNOUX, 2000).
• 14
  In the words of Kelly-Holmes (2015, p. 131), “New Media, and in particular the World Wide Web, are a non-traditional domain for the study of language policy and language planning.”
• 15
  In the horizontal axis, the numerals 1, 2 ... correspond to the years 1990, 1991 and so on. In the vertical one, the numerals correspond to the amount of articles published.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  04 July 2019
• Date of issue
  Apr-Jun 2019

History

• Received
  30 May 2018
• Accepted
  12 Nov 2018