The introduction provides an overview of the state-of-the-art and situates the diverse research experiences and theoretical perspectives discussed by the volume contributors. Moreover, it presents different ways to define language activism based on various theoretical perspectives, research experiences and socio-political contexts. In order to present a nuanced and comprehensive view of activism, the introduction includes a special focus on the different forms it takes, the various stakeholders who may be involved, the unpredictability of who is included and excluded, and the inescapably ideological nature of language and language research. The introduction also addresses the kinds of questions scholars ask depending on the nature of their scholarly and political agendas and lays out a rationale for the four-part organization of the volume. The volume contributions deal with varied social settings ranging from contexts marked by great socio-economic and political inequality with sharply defined power hierarchies, to more egalitarian contexts with more dispersed power and subtle and diverse power hierarchies. Language struggles, whether they involve endangered language revitalization, language standardization, spelling reform or other efforts, involve numerous stakeholders and lead to tensions and battles among as well as within groups.

Ethnographic and discursive approaches have become more common in Language Policy research, focusing on social actors and how their actions are embedded in and shape social structures. Implementations of LP research have been addressed by problematising the notion of research as a neutral endeavour, a process spurred by the increasing focus on multilingualism and a criticism of Eurocentric worldviews.Researchers in the field of multilingualism are often motivated by a concern with social issues, but often this is accounted for in an implicit manner or not addressed at all. I present a nexus analysis (Scollon and Scollon 2004) to show how my engagement as a researcher and activist shaped the standardisation process of Kven (a Finnic minoritized language in Northern Norway) and discuss some of the dilemmas I faced, as there were tensions concerning the standardisation process (Lane 2014).All ethnographic research will lead to change, both on immediate and longer time scales. When engaging in standardisation processes, researchers shape both such processes and the outcomes. However, this is not a unidirectional process, as such engagement will also become a part of the historical body of the researcher. We shape the field, but we are also shaped by the field.

Chapter 5 focuses on the history of language policy and the treatment of Indigenous languages. In addition to refocusing Christianisation on to everyday practice, the reformers of the early seventeenth century laid to rest a long-running dispute among missionaries and administrators concerning the role that Indigenous languages should play in religious instruction. This dispute arose from efforts by the Spanish crown in the sixteenth century to impose a universal solution to the challenges of linguistic heterogeneity: First by suppressing Indigenous languages and teaching Castilian, and later by focusing on the ‘general language’ of each region. Both imperial policies not only failed to overcome the issue of linguistic heterogeneity in the New Kingdom, but were in fact radically transformed and appropriated by local authorities for their own purposes through the use of legal fictions and the selective conveyance of information across the Atlantic. The chapter examines these debates, manoeuvres, and the controversies they produced, before exploring how the seventeenth-century reformers were able to negotiate these divisions and establish a consensus around Indigenous language instruction.

Path dependency relies upon historicity and context to understand how institutions sustain themselves through time and are compelled to change at critical junctures. Some consider this approach as being deterministic, focused on external shocks to institutions and better at explaining stability rather than change. Others consider that there is also agency in institutional change, that actors may seize upon opportunities within institutions to find novel solutions to new challenges, or that a succession of incremental changes may fundamentally alter institutions without any external shock. We understand language regimes as being path dependent, while accepting that various actors may work within the regime to bring forth incremental changes in language policies. These changes may occur through various policy processes rather than through major disruptions. The impetus for this process may come from within the institutions, where state actors may try to adjust policies to a new context, or from language groups who express dissatisfaction towards the regime and mobilize to demand change. The chapter first discusses the possibility that language regime can change; second, it draws upon the institutional literature to describe how a language regime may change; third, it uses the case of French in Ontario to illustrate this process.

The literature on Indigenous language revitalization is dominated by sociolinguistic and normative approaches that focus on “the vitality of languages, the multiple facets of linguistic landscapes, and the effects of language policies on individuals and groups” (Sonntag and Cardinal, 2015: 6). Very little research, however, has been done using the tools of political science and public policy to analyze the emergence of language policies or the choices made by governments and organizations to protect, preserve and revitalize Indigenous languages. Using an historical institutionalist approach, this paper will examine the decline and revitalization of Manx Gaelic (Manx), the Indigenous language of the Isle of Man, a small island jurisdiction in the British Isles. Manx has been critically endangered for many decades, following its slow decline during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but in recent years has undergone a process of revitalization spearheaded by civil society organizations in partnership with government. The chapter identifies and discusses the reasons why Manx went into decline and the opportunities and challenges associated with promoting and sustaining its revitalization.

This introductory chapter situates the book within the field of comparative politics, noting its distinction from debates that focused on the language planning process, on social mobilization to secure language rights, or on linguistic justice. Instead, it highlights state traditions that produce language regimes, which themselves have a powerful influence on language policy choices. The introduction provides two diagrams that frame the theoretical conception and identifies how each chapter contribution deepens and refines the framework.

How does one speak of “African” state traditions, when they have been so deeply marked by outside intervention? Colonial traditions informed virtually all independent African states’ language policies. This chapter expands the STLR framework to postcolonial Africa, suggesting that continent-wide traditions include states oriented outwardly, with minimal accountability to citizens, whose populations are treated as possessing fixed linguistic identities. Beneath these macro traditions are more divergent paths deriving from historical and institutional differences, namely experiences with varying types of colonial rule and construction as either federal or unitary states. This chapter explores the case of Burkina Faso, which displays both the continent-wide traditions as well as a francophone, unitary path, situating it within an analysis of language regimes across Africa. It juxtaposes the constraints of tradition with the critical juncture and policy feedback that produced change across Africa in the last few decades. Finally, it argues that Africa’s language regimes will likely not fit comfortably into existing monolingual or fixed multilingual templates, since they are interacting with precolonial traditions. Rather, the policies that emerge will reflect people’s evolving language use, particularly relating to African lingua francas.

By analyzing government documents from 1885 to the present, the chapter first argues that the liberal movement’s introduction of parliamentary rule in Norway in 1884 was a critical juncture in the state’s language regime. During the union with Denmark (1380-1814), Danish replaced Norwegian as Norway’s written language. In 1885, parliament adopted official equality for a new written Norwegian language (Nynorsk) along with Dano-Norwegian (Bokmål). From 1885, The Liberal Party implemented language regulations, and was also the power behind welfare regulations that are often described as universal. Consequently, the state tradition of Norway has been labelled welfare state universalism. The chapter’s second objective is to explore how Norway’s language policy is related to the social welfare model, and to discuss whether the language regime can be considered universalist. The Labour Party came into office in 1935, completing welfare and language reforms introduced by The Liberal Party. The universalist regime was not challenged by any government of the last part of the century. However, parliament will probably adopt a general language law, and this has sparked a new debate on language rights. The chapter’s third objective is to discuss whether Norway’s linguistic universalism is currently at a critical juncture.

This chapter introduces the geographic area covered by the book. It reviews the changes that have taken place since the previous edition in 2007, in terms of the people who live there, their distribution, and the languages they use, showing that Britain and Ireland are becoming increasingly multiethnic and are homes to a rich array of languages and dialects. It also provides an overview of the rest of the book.

‘Language policy’ is a highly diverse term, encompassing all attempts to purposefully influence language use. Government language policy is broadly considered to have originated as a distinct field of research and policymaking in the 1970s, but we begin the chapter with a historical review of its precursors dating back several centuries. We trace the roots of contemporary language policy to two broad historical developments: Bible translation and universal education. These laid the foundations for what would become language policy. In the contemporary language policy period, we divide our discussion across three fields: modern foreign languages (MFL), indigenous languages and community languages. These categorisations come from policy, not linguistics or sociology. These groups of languages are treated differently in policy, so we divide them accordingly and trace their origins and developments in three political eras from the 1970s onwards: neoliberalism (1970s–80s), New Public Management (1990s–2000s), and austerity (2008 onwards). We show how each field of language policy has been indelibly shaped and contoured by changing political conditions and priorities. Lastly, we consider forms of language that tend to fall outside the scope of government policy, and what extra this reveals about language policy.