ABSTRACT
Eastman states: Language planning is defined by many scholars almost exclusively as standardisation. In some respects the standard form of a language holds the same position with reference to corpus planning as the language of wider communication holds with reference to status planning and with similar political connotations. Language planning tends to be divided into two streams – status planning and corpus planning, the first involving an understanding of how social factors relate to language in terms of status. Second is associated with the linguistic features of a language, mainly in relation to some form of standardisation of one variety over another. Thus the relative lack of linguistic diversity of minority languages inevitably relegates them to a position outside of modern. The survival of minority languages invariably depends not upon some abstract process of modernisation involving linguistic exercises, but rather upon the ability to shift the language into new domains of language activity.
