The 1970s have ushered in a new phase in approaches to language planning; the preference for a less provocative term such as language policy is indicative of this. There is now a decline in the use of terms such as language planning and language engineering: this is as it should be. For almost tow decades, language planning was presented as a cure-all for culturally and lingustically pluralistic societies in the developing Asian, African, and other non-Western countries. The term was overused, and its applications exaggerated. But this enthusiasm was not shared by all; serious practitioners were conscious of the limitations of the claims and the complexities of the task. This changed attitude has naturally contributed to a reassessment and re-evaluation of these earlier claims. There is now a much better understanding of the linguistic, political, sociological, and attitudinal constraints on language policy formation. The availability of greater cross-linguistic empirical data makes comparative observations more meaningful. As a consequence, the term language planning is now used with caution, with restricted generalization, and with an appreciation of the complexity of each situation. It has rightly been recognized that the task is more complex than linguists can handle within the traditionally conceived boundaries of their discipline, for example, in the work of the venerable Einar Haugen, or more recently, in the work of Charles Ferguson, Joshua Fishman, and others.
The policy and policing of language in schools