One
way of looking at this problem is to consider that language policy seems
to be dichotomized into overt (explicit, formalized, de jure,
codified, manifest, written) policies and covert (implicit,
informal, unstated, de facto, grass-roots, latent, unwritten)
components of the policy; what usually gets ignored, of course, are the
covert aspects of the policy, and how these shape a language's policy.
The distinction is borrowed from Whorf (1964:131), who used it to
describe distinctions between overt and covert classes or categories in
the grammar of a language; but we refrain here from psychologizing about
`world views', cultural determinism, or the role of language in `defining
experience'. There are also partial parallels in the notions of `latent'
and `manifest' culture proposed by Becker and Geer 1960, and in the
notions of overt and covert prestige proposed by Labov 1972 and
elaborated in Trudgill 1983:89-90. Relatedly, Tollefson (1988) has also
referred to covert aspects of US language policy toward refugees and
Peddie (1991) has argued that a coherent national language policy for
New Zealand can and is emerging without any overt governmental planning.
Also, for our purposes, the term language planning, though defined
by some researchers as `decision-making about language', we reserve for
such activities as carried on by language academies, language planning
boards, i.e. those policies that are essentially oriented toward the
future (Eastman 1983:3), especially as they involve overt goals and
timetables for the introduction of new vocabulary, changes in status of
different varieties, planning the implementation of educational policy,
etc.