Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
ABSTRACT The purpose of this review is two-fold. First of all, to move toward greater clarity with respect to a number of basic terms revealing less consensus in the language planning literature (e.g. planning, traditional, development, modernization, Westernization) than in the social sciences more generally. Secondly, but more importantly, to introduce into the language planning field a large number of concepts, questions and dimensions which have not yet found their way there from planning theory and planning research in other-than-language fields. In many (but not all) respects it would seem, on logical and impressionistic grounds, that language planning and other- than-language planning face similar burdens and benefit from related social and organizational circumstances.
Joshua A. Fishman (Sun,) studied this question.