A Comparative Study of Language Planning in Specific Domains in Chinese and International Journals (2002 – 2017)

. Recent years have witnessed a surge of interest in language planning in specific domains (e.g. business, courts, science, schools, communities, families, etc.). This paper reviews 356 articles on language planning in specific domains in four preeminent international journals and four leading Chinese journals to develop a portrayal of scholarly endeavors over the past 15 years. By a systematic analysis of domains, geographical distribution, and choice of methodology, this review identifies the global and local foci of studies published in international and Chinese journals. The findings suggest that approaches to language planning vary, as the Chinese literature tends to project a top-down model whereas international research mostly reflects a bottom-up perspective focusing on the role of individual agency. The findings highlight the integral role of language planning as one of the emerging fields in applied linguistics, and discusses future directions that Chinese research in language policy and planning could take to enable more interactions with international academia.


Introduction
Recent years have witnessed a surge of interest in language planning in specific domains, indicating two major shifts in language planning and policy (LPP) studies. First, language planning can occur at the macro, meso and micro levels (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997), and there has been a recent shift from macro language planning to the micro level. Second, traditional research confined to status planning or corpus planning might not serve the needs of specific institutions, entities, or even individuals. Baldauf (2006) proposed a language ecology-oriented framework and illustrated the domains where LPP studies could be carried out. This echoes the language management framework put forward by Spolsky (2004Spolsky ( , 2009 in his attempt to reveal the shifting of LPP studies from the macro to the micro level, wherein language planning takes place within families, courts, schools, and communities, as well as in the domains of manufacturing, sales and service, and administration. It has been more than 20 years since micro language planning was proposed, and about 10 years since language planning in specific domains became well-known. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a review of relevant studies to learn about what has been studied. During the same period, there has been a methodological shift in LPP research, from the descriptive analysis of policy texts to empirical studies at the micro level using a wide range of approaches (Hult & Johnson, 2015). Enabled by these methodological means, researchers have explored not only what language planning or policy is, but also the social reactions to and individual agency over these policies. Inspired by the metaphor of unpeeling the onion proposed by Ricento and Hornberger (1996), LPP scholars have begun to explore specific layers of language planning practice rather than policy documents.
In contrast to international academia, language policy and planning research in China has emerged as an important topic in the past 15 years. Among the frequently discussed topics, language planning in specific domains has attracted the attention of Chinese scholars in different fields including anthropology and linguistics. Therefore, an increasing number of studies have appeared in leading Chinese linguistics journals focusing on various LPP domains. However, as these studies are mostly published in Chinese, the research findings have been relatively unknown to the international audience.
Meanwhile, China has exhibited a substantial and steady rise in its percentage of SSCI indexed linguistics journals (Lei & Liu, 2018: 18), possibly a consequence of the national strategy of "Going out to the outside world" which promotes the international visibility of research outcomes published by Chinese scholars. Therefore, it will be useful to conduct a comparative study of the similarities or differences in the targeted areas of LPP in the Chinese journals compared with their international counterparts, to illustrate the status of the Chinese outputs in comparison with the international literature.
In the following sections we first propose a framework adapted from Haarmann (1990), Spolsky (2009) and Zhao and Baldauf (2012) to categorize language planning in specific domains. Second, based on the SCOPUS and CSSCI databases, we collected and filtered related articles published in four major international journals as well as four major Chinese journals from 2002 to 2017. By means of our analytical framework, we analyze and compare the domain distribution, the methodologies used, and the geographical distribution in the reviewed articles. Finally, we will discuss possible reasons for the differences and similarities in the research output, and explore directions for future studies in this area.

The Analytic Framework for LPP in specific domains
The classical LPP Matrix Model was proposed by Haugen (1983) in which the major players are national authorities, as policy makers of language planning at the macro level. However, Haarmann (1990) noted a fundamental but hidden agenda of human behaviors in achieving LPP goals, as his work on prestige/image planning requiring a bottom-up approach, which is different from the traditional status or corpus planning by authorities. The comprehensive framework proposed by Kaplan and Baldauf (1997) suggested that language planning could occur at the macro, meso, and micro levels, such as business, technology, and education, paving the way for micro language planning research.
Our three-dimension framework, as shown in Figure 1, was based on the theoretical contributions of Haarmann (1990), Baldauf (2006) and Spolsky (2009), which suggest that LPP studies may be conducted using bottom-up or top-down approaches in different domains. For a better understanding of the geographical presentations of the current research, we further investigate the geographical distribution of the selected works as the third dimension.
The first dimension is the domain in which the language planning is performed. The concept of domain, initially proposed by Fishman (1972) as one of his sociolinguistic definitions, was developed by Spolsky (2004Spolsky ( , 2009 in his language management theory. In Spolsky's analysis, the family, the workplace, religion, public space, and the military are highlighted, because in each domain the social roles and relations of the participants are significantly different from their roles in other domains (Fishman, 1972). This classification echoes Baldauf's (2006) proposal that LPP studies could be more microscopic and goal-oriented, which motivated us to probe how the following works have responded to his proposal.
Language planning is all about choice (Spolsky, 2009: 1), so the role of language planners should be a key issue. Among the studies of different domains, if the language planning is carried out by the government to mandate which language should be the medium of instruction in school, the planning will be categorized in the government domain. However, if the study is on a school's choice of which language should be used in the classroom, the study will be categorized in education.
The second dimension is the approach by which language planning is studied. If the article follows a traditional approach focusing, on the policy maker who has the power to prescribe, we categorize the research as a top-down approach. On the other hand, if the study demonstrates an individual actor's reaction or agency in the process of LPP, we categorize it as a bottom-up approach. We use this dimension to present a statistical picture depicting how far the paradigm shift has moved in the past 15 years. The third dimension is the geographical distribution of the targeted area in each study. The aims of this dimension are: first, to find which region attracted the most attention and also which region has the most potential for future research; and second, to explain possible reasons why certain areas have received the most attention. Although very little research has been done to examine the geographical distribution of domain language planning, we believe it is important since language planning research has become more micro and goal-oriented. In this context, how researchers select the targeted area for their research could reflect their preferences and philosophy in the process of academic publication and knowledge creation.

Research Design
In this study, we intend to answer the following questions: (1) What are the similarities and differences between Chinese and international LPP studies?
(2) What are the methodologies and approaches undertaken by Chinese and international LPP scholars?
(3) What is the geographical distribution of the research contexts in these studies, and what are the reasons for this?
The starting year of 2002 was chosen because at that time an increasing number of LPP studies began to appear in Chinese journals, making a comparative study feasible. As shown in Figure 2, four Chinese journals were selected as sample journals, based on the corpus of language planning and policy items in the CSSCI database showing an increasing LPP output during the period from 2002 to 2017. These journals are: Foreign Languages in China (Zhongguo Waiyu), Foreign Language Teaching and Research (Waiyu Jiaoxue yu Yanjiu), Applied Linguistics (Yuyan Wenzi Yingyong), and Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies (Yuyan Jiaoxue yu Yanjiu). These journals are renowned for publishing high-quality work in the Chinese Social Science Citation Index (CSSCI). The researchers identified the journals with the most publications on LPP by searching the database from 2002 to 2017 using the keywords 'language planning'. As the articles in our sample pool accounted for approximately 40% of the total publications in CSSCI with the keywords 'language planning', they may be seen as representative of Chinese research in this field. The articles in the eight journals were first selected by searching for the keyword 'language planning' (or the Chinese translation 语言规划) in their abstracts and keywords. We assumed that any research on language planning would include this phrase in the paper's abstract or as a keyword. Second, we manually selected articles by removing book reviews, editorials, and other irrelevant articles. As listed in Table 3, a total of 356 journal articles published between 2002 and 2017 were identified.
After all the articles were prepared, the researchers read the abstracts of the 356 papers to achieve a thorough examination of the first dimension in the study. Second, the approaches and methodologies of the articles were identified by careful reading and classification. Finally, we identified the geographical region of each study. When the classification and review work was finished, we compared and contrasted the articles published in the international and Chinese journals in order to locate differences and similarities in terms of methodologies, geographical distributions and domains. Government has been regarded as one of the major domains where LPP studies are conducted. Generally speaking, the Chinese government aims to achieve 'harmonious multiculturalism' by implementing different language planning and policy practice (Shen & Gao, 2019). For example, Zhou (2005) proposed that a harmonious language ecosystem could be achieved by language planning as a result of government efforts. He argued that the purpose of Chinese LPP is united but diversified, meaning that the official language and dialects, ethnic minority languages and the language of Han, the standardized language and folk language, should be positioned in a harmonious relationship. Li (2012b) proposed a multilevel framework and the concept of 'language life' for planning language in everyday life. In his view, language planning is present at the macro, meso and micro levels, and therefore government language planning should cater for the needs of central authorities as well as individuals (Li, 2012b).
In the Chinese context, it is possible to achieve language harmony by language planning and government policies (Dai, 2011). This philosophy in language planning is different from the critical approach (Tollefson, 1991(Tollefson, , 2006) that examines the process by which language is associated with power and inequality (Tollefson & Perez-Milans 2018:7) towards governmentality. International works in this domain have followed a descriptive approach to document how governments set policies or rules as guidelines (Hancock, 2014;Wu, 2011). However, the targeted area and nations are focused, in most cases, in underdeveloped countries. We will present and discuss this finding in the following section.

Language Planning in Education (17 Chinese, 40 international)
The research topics and the approaches in this field varied between the Chinese and international studies. A large number of publications in Chinese journals focused on LPP in foreign language education (Cai, 2017;Hu, 2011). In contrast, LPP in mother tongue and local language education attracted more international attention (Hayati & Mashhadi, 2010;Paciotto & Delany-Barmann, 2011). Chinese scholars discussed topics including college English policy (Shen, 2017), historical development (Hu, 2011), and resource allocation (Zhang, 2011). A total of 15 articles took a macro perspective to look at national education policy-making and implementation. The studies in the international journals mostly built their arguments using micro analysis in local contexts (Taylor-Leech & Kerry, 2014), and 8 papers followed a critical approach to discuss equality in education planning (Hashimoto, 2011;Skerrett, 2014), particularly English as a medium of instruction and its influence (Salomone, 2015). Such diversified topics and approaches may give insights for future Chinese research.

Language Planning in Business and the Workplace (9 Chinese, 3 international)
In the Chinese journals, scholars regarded language as an industrial element in the fields of education, translation, and interpreting services (Chen, 2012;Hu, 2013;Qu, 2012). Therefore, methodological typology in the language of economics was introduced as an analytical framework (Li, 2012a;Zhang & Liu, 2012). Although Baldauf and Spolsky both noted the importance of language planning in the business domain, our review did not find many articles in this area. The publications in the international journals primarily dealt with language planning practices in companies and corporations (Barakos, 2012;Goncalves & Schluter, 2017;Nekvapil & Sherman, 2009).
The contrast suggests that language planning in business and the workplace is differently conceptualized in the Chinese and international arenas. Chinese scholars viewed it in a macro sense, as industrial planning for economic development and involving macro analysis of how language industry could be developed. Meanwhile, the authors in international journals regarded it as a micro language planning practice, carried out by companies or business entities to improve management or communication.

Language Planning for Academic Communication and Publication (2 Chinese, 5 international)
LPP studies of academic communication and publication emerged and developed as English became a 'default' choice for most international academic publications. Chinese scholars began to reflect on the influence of English as a language policy in Chinese institutions. Zheng and Gao (2016) concluded that English played a dominant role in social science publication and constituted an inevitable challenge to Chinese journals. In terms of theoretical contributions, Shen and Xia (2013) proposed a theoretical framework for language planning for academic purposes.
The dominance of English as a language policy in the academic world also caused concerns in Europe. For example, Ammon (2006) reported the rise of English in academic scientific use and discussed its downsides and possible fixes. Both Chinese and international studies mainly debate the feasibility and moral aspects of English as a common academic language. It may be noted that authors mainly hold a conservative view on the trend whereby English has become dominant in the academic world.

Language Planning in Cities and Urban Area (19 Chinese, 4 international)
Studies on urban language planning typically employ the linguistic landscape as their data. Most of the Chinese studies conducted sociolinguistic surveys on the description of language use or the semiotic signs in cities. For instance, Yu et al. (2016) conducted a survey in Beijing and Shanghai on the multilingual landscape of the foreign resident communities. Nie and Munai (2017) investigated the minority language of the Yi people in the urban areas of Xichang city.
In contrast, international publications take more diversified theoretical perspectives. HoganBrun (2012) reflected on the conceptualization of superdiversity and language management in urban language planning, while Barakos (2012) adopted critical discourse analysis to examine overt and covert Welsh language policy and planning processes in private businesses in Cardiff.

Language Planning in Communities (0 Chinese, 15 international)
It is interesting to note that language planning in communities has a place in the international journals, but not in the Chinese publications. Studies at a meso level, such as Hatoss (2006), Fiedler (2012) and Napier, Major, Ferrara & Johnston (2014), reported positive effects at the community level for more constructive language planning practices. On the other hand, Ni Ghearain (2011) reported a problematic situation of Irish terminology planning caused by community resistance, depicting a negative aspect of community agency.
There was no literature in this domain found in the Chinese journals. As China has accelerated its urbanization in the last five years, language planning in communities deserves more attention among Chinese scholars.

Family Language Planning (4 Chinese, 2 international)
Empirical studies emerged in the domain of family language planning, with theoretical outcomes for language choices and social change at the macro level (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997). A range of studies were carried out from a bottom-up perspective, with solid ethnographical observations and documentation (Kang, 2015;Curdt-Christiansen, 2009;Fogle, 2013). Chinse journals also contributed two empirical studies in this domain, with a focus on minority college students in Beijing and children in Malaysia respectively (Wu, 2008a;Kang, 2015). It is possible that family language policy will be an emergent domain inspiring more studies, especially since the family has been recognized as an important site for language preservation and transmission against the backdrop of the multilingual complexities in Chinese society.

Language Planning in the Media (4 Chinese, 5 international)
Chinese scholars conducted four studies on communication and media studies, with a focus on the influence of the media on Chinese language learning (Yao, 2012;Liu & Guo 2012), whereas most international studies treated media as a tool to protect minority languages (Halwachs, 2011;HoganBrun, 2011;van Dijk, 2009). This contrast indicates the different role that media plays in language planning in this domain in the Chinese and international contexts.

Language Planning in Religion and Churches (0 Chinese, 7 international)
International studies explored the possibilities of relating deliberate and unconscious LPP actions with religious practices. Research involving sociolinguistic surveys on language in churches (Medina-Rivera, 2012) and theoretical insights (Liddicoat, 2012) were conducted by international authors. On the contrary, little work was conducted in the religious domain by Chinese scholars, although Chinese contexts abound with a long historical multi-religious culture.

Language Planning in International Organizations (7 Chinese, 3 international)
In this domain, the WHO (Higgins, 2010) and the UN (McEntee-Atalianis, 2016; Wen, 2015) have been studied. The case studies employed in this research followed a descriptive approach to document the language use and choice in major international organizations. For example, Higgins (2010) challenged the language access in healthcare and HIV prevention information, and Wen (2015) proposed ways to enhance Chinese status in the UN. These studies indicated that the researchers' concerns related to the imperative issue whereby international organizations guarantee equal access and status in the multilingual world. Tollefson (2013: 26) argued that two approaches, the 'neoclassical approach' and the 'historical-structural approach', could be identified in the development of LPP studies. Recently the historical-structural approach has been criticized for its focus on top-down planning and policy-making, and a new direction in LPP studies emphasizing agency and bottom-up perspectives emerged (Tollefson, 2013: 27). However, as shown in Table 5, the top-down model still makes up a substantial proportion of the studies.  Table 5 The proportion of top-down and bottom-up models in the reviewed articles As shown in Table 5, this is particularly the case in the Chinese journals. The topdown model accounts for 126 papers, making up the majority of the total work. Positioned as language policy consultants, Chinese researchers have normally focused on the practice and factual facets of language planning and policy in their articles. For instance, we find that our country (我国) appeared 37 times in the Chinese abstracts, as a macro description of the national language situation and policy documentation. However, 19 (about 12%) of the papers applied a bottom-up approach, most of which were in the category of research on linguistic landscapes (Nie & Munai, 2017;Yu, Wang, & Sun, 2016) and language attitudes (Chen, 2014;Wu, 2008b;Xie, 2006;Zhang, 2016). Chinese authors' engagement with the power of language policy making might be explained by their conceptualization of the word 'policy' in language policy. The Chinese discourse of policy in most cases refers to the policy text, but in the English world the word 'policy' could be the implementation and process of a specific policy against the backdrop of socialpolitical contexts. Therefore, Chinese researchers may have a different, more holistic perspective on language planning and policy. On the other hand, 52% (n=102) of the international papers reviewed adopted a bottom-up approach by investigating the micro duality of individual agency and power in the process of language planning, although 41% (n=81) of the international research took a top-down approach, addressing what the policy makers do or what the policy stipulates. This contrast suggests that after more than half a century, the development of LPP as a discipline has identified the importance of the bottom-up approach with more attention to agency against the power structure of language policy, which makes it more theoretically enriched (Tollefson, 2013).

Geographical Distribution
158 articles were categorized as specific studies with a geographical focus on the local context, comprising 125 studies in the international journals and 33 in the Chinese journals. The data comparison of the geographical distribution of LPP studies in Chinese and international journals is shown on a world map by in Figure 6. In Figure 6, the red dots represent data from the Chinese journals and the blue dots represent the international ones. The size of each dot represents the calculated number of studies in this geographical area. It is clear that the geographical distribution of international journals is much wider, in which Europe and Africa attracted greater attention than other areas.
Apart from the predominant focus on Greater China in Chinese research, experience in North America attracted Chinese scholars' interest partly because of the linguistic diversity the two countries share, since American practice in the process of language planning might be useful to the development of LPP in China. It is noteworthy that Chinese scholars paid special attention to neighboring countries involved in the 'Belt and Road' Initiative proposed by the Chinese government in 2013. It is believed that comparative studies of language planning may contribute to mutual understanding and reciprocal benefits among Belt and Road countries (Shen & Gao, 2019).

Discussion
This comparative study, based on 356 papers on language planning in specific domains in international and Chinese leading LPP journals, indicates subtle similarities and substantial differences in domains, methodologies, and geographical distributions. First, the findings related to domain distribution in the international journals reveal that specific questions in LPP may be generated with respect to particular planning and implementation situations in or across different domains receiving global attention (e.g. national, regional, community, schools, religious institutions, etc.). Comparatively speaking, there should be a wider engagement with domain studies in LPP among Chinese scholars, especially since LPP in China has emerged as a disciplinary field partly because of the administrative policy in support of a series of language protection projects intended to deal with language problems (Cao, 2015). Therefore, some of the Chinese research was funded by the government to probe into the domains of government, business, and city in response to the complexities of the multilingual and multicultural nature of society in China. However, rigorous studies in a range of specific contexts, such as communities, education, health, and religion, are yet to be carried out in the era of globalization and urbanization in China (Shen & Gao, 2019).
Second, the lens of agency proposed by Haarmann (1990) and Baldauf (1994) paved the way for LPP studies through which individuals, communities, and schools could be observed as actors who exert influence in language planning. An increasing number of studies in the four leading international journals were engaged in examining interactions in LPP in local contexts. It is clear that international research has made efforts to reclaim local identities by challenging the view of language policy as positive social control (Tollefson, 2013).
In contrast, Chinese studies mainly took a top-down approach at the macro level. Chinese researchers acted as policy advisors in the process of language planning. Ever since the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949, the Chinese government has promoted a standard language (Putonghua) to facilitate socioeconomic development, and has treated regional varieties of the Chinese language and minority languages as carriers of tradition and cultural identity (Tan & Rubdy, 2008:11). For the purpose of achieving 'harmonious multilingualism' (Shen & Gao, 2019), the Chinese government and researchers have maintained close ties to facilitate projects such as Yubao or 'the Preservation of Regional Chinese Varieties' Project (Cao, 2015) as well as international Chinese education (Peng, 2012;Wu, 2010).
It is noteworthy that the role of individual agency was exercised in the preservation of regional varieties in China against the backdrop of the overall social political context (Gao, 2012(Gao, , 2015Shen, 2016;Shao & Gao, 2018;Xia & Shen, 2019). Although the power of grassroots movements in China is relatively low (Shen, 2016), currently a shift to the local agency in Chinese studies is emerging as a reaction against the long-running focus on policy making at the macro level, which deserves ongoing attention in LPP research.
It is clear that a bottom-up approach with a focus on individuals is needed for the field to become more theoretically enriched. Top-down descriptive analysis of policy discourse draws on the actions of governments, but may sometimes ignore interactions between language choices and social factors such as ethnicity, culture, and ideology. Micro-analysis and bottom-up work could build foundations for macro descriptions and provide solid local and ethnographical material for a better understanding of the complexity and interaction between individuality and social factors. In this regard, we suggest that more Chinese LPP studies and publications should focus on the meso and micro levels, especially on the role of institutions and individual agency. In many cases, the macro policy discourse and practice could be interpreted and implemented differently due to varied local contexts and individual agency. Therefore, it is not enough for studies to document or frame the general policy discourse. Ethnographical and local surveys are also needed for theories to be more solid and enriched.
On the other hand, future LPP publications in the international journals could continue segmenting the theory to encompass more local contexts. However, as Chomsky's butterfly-collecting metaphor echoed (Chomsky et al., 1979: 57), LPP studies may follow a descriptive approach to depict language planning in every domain and location. The ultimate goal should not be to describe the minutest detail of language planning situations or criticize the power inequalities that damage the linguistic rights of individuals. As LPP studies are closely linked with human life and public policy, Chinese scholars may act as a 'bypass' in the interplay between authorities and grassroots to facilitate policy negotiations in cases such as dialect preservation, language education policy-making and Putonghua standardization.
Finally, geographical distribution reflects resource allocation and cooperation in LPP studies. LPP has been employed as an integral instrument to serve the political and ethnic policies of governments, which decide the allocation of resources and funding to support studies in this regard. Therefore, a great number of the works reviewed are goal-oriented and funded by the government to support policy suggestions that cater for the needs of national language planning projects such as the promotion of Putonghua, the overseas dissemination of Chinese, and foreign language education reform. As Taiwan Chinese (Guo & Su, 2017), Hong Kong SAR (Qi, 2013) and Macau SAR (Zhang, 2010) have been on the national unity agenda, challenges in these areas invite funding and research projects to provide more research outcomes for these regions. It is also noteworthy that the Belt and Road Initiative proposed by the Chinese government has encouraged scholars to find solutions to language barriers (Lu & Zhu, 2017). In short, Chinese LPP studies are closely related to the targets or goals of the government. Many studies are carried out to serve national policies such as building a harmonious society or responding to Belt and Road initiatives.

Conclusions
We undertook this review to compare the topical concerns and methodological differences of articles on language planning in specific domains in four international and four Chinese journals. Our review documented a paradigm shift and the diversification of domains after the new millennium. Over the course of 50 years of research on LPP, the focus of international research shifted to specific domains of language planning. Such domains as education, business, religion, and the community were prominent and frequently studied, but overall most researchers still focused on the domain of government, where language planning practice was primarily thought to take place. Meanwhile, a paradigm shift from traditional macro descriptive analysis to investigating more micro level and hidden aspects of language planning could be seen in the reviewed articles. More than half of the studies chose a bottom-up model, illustrating the research paradigm shift from a top-down model to a bottom-up model and documenting individual agency in local contexts.
LPP study is an emerging field in China, but as it attracted more academic attention the publications in the Chinese journals showed a more restricted and focused geographical distribution, mostly surrounding mainland China. Chinese scholars, typically acting as policy consultants for the government, used a top-down model in most cases. This difference indicated possibilities for Chinese LPP studies to be integrated into international academia. Language planning could be viewed as a multiple domain system where participants could be the government, social entities, or individuals in different social contexts. Rather than a single direction from policy makers to the governed public, Chinese LPP study may have the scope to examine micro, intermediate, or hidden scenarios in research on language planning practices.
In our final analysis, we questioned the descriptive approach of depicting language planning as micro by segmenting and dissolving current theories within local contexts. The top-down, goal-oriented model that Chinese LPP studies often follow, as well as the close cooperation between academic research and policymaking, may be able to provide insights for international LPP research.