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.

This chapter deals with the Algerian language regime and its formation/operation during the history of contemporary Algeria, making the Amazigh language activism the common thread through which this language regime has been shaped. The objective is to present a particular postcolonial language regime, which reflects an entire political system. Indeed, it approaches the situation of languages from a double perspective: the status conferred and the status anticipated/expected. The balance, or not, between the two levels helps to define the type of language regime and its stability. However, in this case study, the fact that the Amazigh language is marginalized and far from meeting the expectations of those who claim it, means that the gap between the two statuses is significant. Thus, taking the Amazigh claims as a guideline for approaching the Algerian language regime seems to be the most efficient way to understand and present this language regime. It is the Amazigh language that has experienced the most intense activism. This seems to have weighed the most in the Algerian language regime, pushing it from the inside to evolve, in particular through the critical junctures of political crises.

This chapter focuses on the contributions of economists to the selection, design, and evaluation of language policies, particularly since the late 1970s. We show how to perform status analysis using available data on earnings, language skills, language of work, and language of consumption. Then, we turn to the evaluation of the costs and benefits of language policy measures. We add a section on the use of stylized data, an approach common in economic theoretical modeling and empirical evaluation. Finally, this chapter discusses some challenges in understanding the role of economic processes in language issues.

The chapter explores the relationship between official and “non-official” languages in Canada by taking as its starting point two Statistics Canada reports on ethnocultural and linguistic diversity released in 2017. Its goal is to examine how demographic trends, combined with recent debates and policy initiatives, are going to impact Canada’s language regime. The first section discusses international immigration. The second section focuses on Toronto, Montréal, Vancouver, and Ottawa. The third section reflects on how Canada’s language regime will respond to the challenges raised by the projected expansion of linguistic diversity in the population. The chapter concludes that, while Canada’s language regime shifted from Anglo-conformity to equality between English and French starting in the late 1960s, the projected increase in ethnocultural and linguistic diversity cannot render invisible the persistent pull of English, which could lend support to old Anglo-conformist attitudes and tendencies around language policy and planning in the country as a whole.

Using a historical institutionalist approach, I demonstrate how institutionalized norms stemming from the liberal tradition in America have informed its language regime by tracing the path dependency of language policy and the critical junctures when changing norms lead to policy shifts. In the early republic, liberal norms enshrined in the Constitution informed a minimalist language regime. At the turn of the 19th century, norms shifted to reflect rapid industrialization and mass immigration, informing attempts at restrictive language policies. At the critical juncture of the civil rights movement, the monolingual language regime was challenged by new norms of what constituted a liberal democratic society. Neoliberal norms of the Reagan presidency facilitated the success of the English-only movement in changing language policies at the state-level. Neoliberal cosmopolitanism of the new millennium re-introduced minimal multilingual policy initiatives. I conclude by suggesting that Trump’s election represents a shift to nationalist, albeit possibly illiberal, norms.

Using a historical institutionalist approach, I demonstrate how institutionalized norms stemming from the liberal tradition in America have informed its language regime by tracing the path dependency of language policy and the critical junctures when changing norms lead to policy shifts. In the early republic, liberal norms enshrined in the Constitution informed a minimalist language regime. At the turn of the 19th century, norms shifted to reflect rapid industrialization and mass immigration, informing attempts at restrictive language policies. At the critical juncture of the civil rights movement, the monolingual language regime was challenged by new norms of what constituted a liberal democratic society. Neoliberal norms of the Reagan presidency facilitated the success of the English-only movement in changing language policies at the state-level. Neoliberal cosmopolitanism of the new millennium re-introduced minimal multilingual policy initiatives. I conclude by suggesting that Trump’s election represents a shift to nationalist, albeit possibly illiberal, norms.

Despite surface-level changes to the Heritage Languages Program in Ontario, heritage language instruction continues to exist at the margins of school life in Ontario. Public deliberations over this policy have led to intense, racialized conflict among stakeholders. At their most fundamental level, these conflicts have centred on who has – or should have – the power (or the “right”) to determine linguistic and cultural practices within publicly funded schools. To address this question, the chapter builds on my previous work sketching out a political-economy perspective on language policy analysis. Most salient is this theory’s insight that, while capitalism relies on human labour to create all profit and value, it has no internal system for reproducing that labour in the first place. I situate language socialization within this contradiction. When speakers of minoritized and/or racialized languages make demands for access to their languages in the public sphere (be it at work, at school, etc.) they directly challenge this separation between production and social reproduction. Understanding this contradiction moves us beyond searching for better metaphors for framing language policy, and towards concrete political strategies for undermining language-based oppression.