Chapter 8 concludes the book with a recapitulation of how the serial narrative ethnographic method sheds light on theories of language shift and cultural adaptation in general; a consideration of some alternative lenses through which to conceptualize the heritage language repertoire; and a dialectical, dialogical, and ecological take on language shift. It ends with projections regarding the trajectory of the heritage language repertoire; a call for shifts from a focus on discrete heritage languages to heritage linguistic repertoires and from static to dynamic views of diaspora with social justice and multilingualism at the core; and a reminder that heritage languages are not static relics but living narratives that evolve in response to tradition, adaptation, and the interplay between the past and the future.

This chapter engages with the question of what language policy does by considering what the scope of language policy as a field of inquiry is beyond the traditional focus on the management of ‘named languages’. I look at how language policies in educational context involve privileging particular ‘ways of being’ and managing hierarchies of knowledge and expertise, moving far beyond the mere regulation of ‘language’ use. In other cases, such as in the regulation of interaction on the flight decks of commercial airliners, language policies are part of a broader process of managing relationships, where they help establish an overall set of values. Language policies are also involved in managing visibility by controlling what voices are heard in public discourse, not only with regard to what ‘languages’ may be used, but also more broadly with regard to what topics may be discussed, what behaviours are to be engaged in and which are to be avoided. Finally, language policies manage access by helping create boundaries in discourse, associated with beliefs about what it means to be a member of a community.

This chapter draws a context-driven distinction between two key archetypes of how language policy is done. The first archetype is institutional language policies, which I describe as characterised by the existence of a universal mandate (non-optional membership) and a pre-existing structure of authority (i.e. a hierarchy which is explicitly legislated). The most clear-cut example of this is the modern nation-state, whose power derives from the universal acceptance of the legitimacy of its power to impose measures across a particular geographic area, and from the existence of a set of codified principles by which such power is exercised. The second archetype is community language policies, which occur in social structures where individuals participate in a semi-stable way and which often have a distinct, explicit identity, but in which policies operate in a less predetermined manner. Rather than being legislated, authority to establish and enforce policy is assumed by individuals and is thus open to more negotiation, as is the mandate for any policy to be made in general.

The focus of this chapter is on how language policies are resisted. The chapter begins by articulating in a theoretical and practical way what resistance to language policy looks like, particularly from a discursive point of view. It concludes with a case study of resistance to language policy in an online forum for non-local teachers of English in Thailand, highlighting the entanglements between resistance to limits on what ‘named languages’ could be used and a broader struggle to overcome a hegemonic racial ideology around the concept of ‘native speaker’.

In this chapter, language policies are examined with reference to how they are debated in public discourse. The chapter argues that, like in politics, the space afforded to language policy in conventional media is often narrow, and depends upon how language-related issues invoke broader narratives of identity and ideology, though more significant debating often occurs in new media. The case study examines debates about language policy in Singapore, drawing on examples from traditional media (in the form of letters to the editor) to comments under a Facebook post by a local media outlet.

The concluding chapter brings together the main threads running through the book in a discussion of what acting critically looks like from the perspective of language policy scholarship. It discusses how we as language policy scholars can engage in policy action, not only through scholarship but through advocacy in public discourse and by seeking out opportunities to achieve tangible, practical change.

The introductory chapter breaks down the main features of what a focus on language policy in action entails. I discuss what recent reconceptualisations of ‘language’ mean for how we understand language policy, arguing in particular for a need to focus on how the exercise of authority in language alters the balance of power in discourse. Language policy is presented as a form of sociocultural practice and broken down into five broad actions: constructing, debating, interpreting, enforcing, resisting. The foundations of the critical approach of the book are also presented.

This chapter examines how language policies are constructed, focussing most attention on more institutional policies, particularly those created by governments. I discuss the often-peripheral place of language policy on the political agenda, focussing on the practical implications of this for how policies are made. Issues around the writing and ownership of policy texts are also examined, with the case study drawing on data from a detailed historical ethnographic study of policy construction in Slovenia, tracing the trajectory of a language policy text from inception to formal endorsement.

In this chapter, the focus shifts to how language policies are enforced, a term which I use instead of the more traditional ‘implementation’ to highlight the need to focus on action in specific policy contexts and accept the messiness and asymmetry inherent to such a focus. I argue in particular for greater attention to how policies impact the individual by codifying emotional responses and structuring the linguistic habitus. The case study looks at how English language learning is enforced as a moral imperative in Thai mass media through emotive references to the English Proficiency Index published annually by Education First.