Abstract：This paper frames evolving agency in language policy in terms of three eras, language policy 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 respectively, as a way of understanding language policy 4.0 as both a continuum and a disruption in terms of agency. Language policy 1.0 is defined by what Pennycook (2004) calls ‘a striving for singularity’ involving segregationist policies in relation to languages, i.e. strict demarcation of languages from each other, and a macro sociological view of language. The origins of and context for language policy 1.0 include European nation-stated building of the modern period as well as colonialism and later imperialism. The key and perhaps more accurately the sole agents here are states and their agents. Speech communities are primarily geographically or territorially defined, following Herderian ideals of one country, one people, one language. In terms of policies these are mainly de jure or explicit policies. Many of our foundational theories and concepts of language policy, even where they have been critiqued (Walsh and McLeod 2008, Ricento 2000, Shohamy 2006, Hult and Hornberger 2016), come from this era and in many ways we could say the learning from this era constitutes a kind of mainstream that everything else either defaults to or contrasts with. So, language policy 1.0 is a sort of foundational base even if we have perhaps moved away from it. The context for language policy 2.0 is the increasing role of corporations and the consequent growth of commercialization and marketization of societal institutions and practices as well as the growth of multinational companies. Companies have grown their reach beyond their national borders and alongside this has been the development of multinational and ultimately global corporations and businesses, which are often perceived as ‘stateless’ in the sense of not belonging to a particular geographic of lingua-cultural territory. Given this reach, such companies exert a strong influence on language—as well as on many other aspects of life—in the world. Despite this influence, most obviously seen in the spread of English, this is an era that the LPP field knows less about and certainly the role of companies, and in particular multinational companies is, in comparison to the wealth of studies of language policy 1.0 in relation to governments and their agencies, a less well-understood phenomenon. The context for language policy 3.0 and the growing role for individual agency is the emergence of Web 2.0 as a participatory web to which individuals could contribute content and its evolution to Web 3.0 which is about collaboration and integration of those possibilities into everyday life. Instead of or alongside traditional, territorially bound speech communities, we have seen the emergence of ephemeral communities of practice which are constituted around shared interests and shared recognition of repertoires and resource and shared indexicalities (Androutsopoulos’ work (for example, 2014, 2013, 2008) has been particularly influential here) which perhaps go above and beyond the established territorial links or which have perhaps very little to do with top-down government-led language policy. This leads to fragmented and multiplying speech communities, which are being constantly differentiated from each other. Although the large social media companies do have language policies, what has been particularly significant beyond these and the de facto policies of businesses and organisations operating in the digital media are locally situated peer-to-peer policies and contingent normativities rather than one-to-many-type policies or mass policies, and this has been the focus in language policy 3.0 research. The paper concludes by speculating about where we are going in terms of digital technology, namely Web 3.0 and 4.0 which will see increasing automation through Artificial Intelligence, augmented reality and big data, and its implications for language policy. What seems clear even at this stage is that the primary agency in future will be with the technology, and that ‘algorithmic agency’ will increasingly take primacy over human agency. As we embark on language policy 4.0, we need to continue asking the fundamental questions about language policy and to understand it broadly: Why is language being managed? Where? By whom? And for what purposes? And we need to keep exploring, in Heller’s (2007) terms, what naturalizations, objectifications and uniformizations are manifested / maintained, not just in the moment in the micro-level interactions but also in the meso- and macro level activities that are enabling and encouraging these also. It is also important to acknowledge that LP1.0 and 2.0 continue to exist; countries and commercial actors are still active in LPLP and in fact a key challenge lies in identifying the interlinkages and imbalances between all potential agents—countries, companies, individuals, automation—at different moments in time and in different spaces. This involves critiquing but also maintaining concepts learned from previous eras and balancing a portfolio of concepts and learnings from across these eras.
