Search

The processes of formulation of language policies have not been researched thoroughly. This paper aims to explore the relationship between ideas, power and agency in language policy-making and specifically with reference to the formulation of language-in-education policy for multilingualism in Ireland. Through an argumentative approach to language policy and using a discursive institutionalist framework, the paper examines data from policy documents and interviews with policy actors in the Department of Education and Skills. The paper reports on the ways in which agentive discourses are constrained and enabled by institutional structures. The analysis shows how power resulting from asymmetric internal forces and the hierarchical architecture of institutions prevailed over the capacity of some actors to promote their ideas through discourse. Moreover, it shows how static ideational elements are powerful structural constraints on agency. The paper argues for a conceptualisation of actors in policy-making as agentive individuals who engage in a dynamic struggle over ideas to realise complex and changing policy goals. It concludes by claiming that a focus on discursive forms of power in the policy analysis at the so-called macro level would be beneficial for language policy scholarship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present paper explores the extent of Irish language use in networked communications' and attitudes towards the language by 125 schoolchildren from three backgrounds in Ireland: (1) an Irish-speaking area (Gaeltacht) and Irish medium of instruction, (2) an English-speaking area and Irish medium of instruction, and (3) an English-speaking area and English medium of instruction, with Irish as a school subject. The questionnaire-based research found that token usage of Irish was high, but the lack of domains of language usage meant that children had little opportunity to use the language for real communication. It was also found that as the level of exposure to the language decreases, so too does the level of communicative usage. Respondents tended to employ networked communication through Irish, if Irish was the usual language of communication with the particular interlocutor, and those who used Irish in various domains of their lives also used it more in their networked communications. With regard to the participants' attitudes towards the language, English medium schoolchildren were found to have the most positive attitudes towards the language; however, Irish medium and Gaeltacht schoolchildren were more aware of the importance of bilingualism and its practical benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]