語(yǔ)言與人口：計(jì)劃生育政策及人口變化對(duì)語(yǔ)言和語(yǔ)言學(xué)的啟示

李嵬

自2005年以來(lái)，中國(guó)政府發(fā)布了一系列中國(guó)社會(huì)生活中的語(yǔ)言使用狀況報(bào)告。這是中國(guó)在語(yǔ)言研究方面的重大進(jìn)展，也引起了海外學(xué)界的極大關(guān)注。德國(guó)的德古意特出版社將這些報(bào)告中的一些文章譯成英文，并結(jié)集出版。這些報(bào)告重新將我們的注意力聚焦在社會(huì)政策與社會(huì)變化、語(yǔ)言使用和語(yǔ)言結(jié)構(gòu)的內(nèi)在聯(lián)系上。對(duì)于中國(guó)這樣的社會(huì)，這些聯(lián)系有著非凡的意義，可以說(shuō)，任何實(shí)用性語(yǔ)言研究都需要認(rèn)真、系統(tǒng)地考慮這些聯(lián)系。

最近，中國(guó)又出臺(tái)了很多對(duì)語(yǔ)言和語(yǔ)言研究產(chǎn)生直接和顯著影響的重要政策和措施。例如，“一帶一路”方略已經(jīng)吸引了許多語(yǔ)言學(xué)家和語(yǔ)言政策制定者的極大關(guān)注。另一項(xiàng)政策，我特別感興趣并且認(rèn)為對(duì)語(yǔ)言研究有重要意義，是計(jì)劃生育政策，具體地說(shuō)是城市地區(qū)放寬一對(duì)夫婦只生一個(gè)孩子的政策。

始于20世紀(jì)50年代的獨(dú)生子女政策是全面計(jì)劃生育政策的一部分。這項(xiàng)政策在20世紀(jì)80年代初的三、四年里被嚴(yán)格執(zhí)行。單就生育控制方面，這項(xiàng)政策似乎取得了明顯的成功：世界銀行的數(shù)據(jù)表明1990年至2000年間，中國(guó)的人口出生率從2.61（每育齡女性）降到1.45，低于大部分西方發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家。據(jù)人口學(xué)家和中國(guó)問(wèn)題觀察家的估計(jì)，中國(guó)在1980年至2010年間少生了2至4億人。

該政策帶來(lái)了廣泛而深遠(yuǎn)的影響。據(jù)聯(lián)合國(guó)統(tǒng)計(jì)，這項(xiàng)政策導(dǎo)致中國(guó)家庭“4-2-1”結(jié)構(gòu)的出現(xiàn)。在中國(guó)，有三分之一的人口超過(guò)60歲，只有約48%的人口處于勞動(dòng)年齡，老齡化現(xiàn)象非常嚴(yán)重。據(jù)美國(guó)中央情報(bào)局出版的《世界概況》，中國(guó)人口性別比例為119：100（男/女）。這些給經(jīng)濟(jì)（福利）、國(guó)家安全（軍隊(duì)）和文化（漢族與少數(shù)民族；城市和農(nóng)村） 帶來(lái)嚴(yán)重后果。

我主要關(guān)注的是一對(duì)夫婦生育一個(gè)孩子的政策對(duì)語(yǔ)言造成的影響，包括對(duì)語(yǔ)言使用和語(yǔ)言結(jié)構(gòu)產(chǎn)生的影響。這是一個(gè)尚未系統(tǒng)研究而非常值得關(guān)注的領(lǐng)域，目前既是對(duì)比展開(kāi)實(shí)證研究的最佳時(shí)間。調(diào)查的重點(diǎn)首先是兒童語(yǔ)言習(xí)得和語(yǔ)言發(fā)展。很多語(yǔ)言學(xué)家認(rèn)為人類(lèi)先天就有學(xué)習(xí)語(yǔ)言的能力，語(yǔ)言輸入和學(xué)習(xí)環(huán)境對(duì)兒童語(yǔ)言習(xí)得和發(fā)展至關(guān)重要。我們同樣知道這樣一個(gè)事實(shí)，即孩子從照顧者那里獲得的關(guān)注度非常重要，從他們那里獲得的語(yǔ)言輸入模式也同樣重要。我們也知道，同伴互動(dòng)對(duì)兒童成長(zhǎng)非常關(guān)鍵，此外，性別也起著一定的作用。曾經(jīng)有研究者關(guān)注過(guò)中國(guó)傳統(tǒng)的育兒習(xí)俗，如將孩子背在母親的背上而不是將他們抱在前面，可能會(huì)減少孩子和作為主要看護(hù)者的母親之間的“共同注意”，也因此降低了對(duì)語(yǔ)言發(fā)展可能相當(dāng)重要的輸入的質(zhì)和量。現(xiàn)在，作為家里的獨(dú)生子，一個(gè)典型的中國(guó)孩子在家庭里可能得到了過(guò)多的關(guān)注。他們有大量的刺激物，如玩具、書(shū)籍、電視、電子產(chǎn)品、游戲等陪伴左右。但這并不意味著他們會(huì)有更多的“共同注意”，尤其是和父母的“共同注意”相對(duì)較少。事實(shí)是，他們接收到的語(yǔ)言模式在很大程度上是“成人”的，甚至是“老人”的，因?yàn)橛凶娓改竻⑴c其中。目前兒童的語(yǔ)言發(fā)展缺乏“同胞模式”，即沒(méi)有兄弟姐妹之間的互動(dòng)，同胞互動(dòng)與同伴互動(dòng)有著根本性差異。這些現(xiàn)象與社會(huì)文化共同促使年幼的孩子出現(xiàn)明顯的早熟現(xiàn)象。我們?cè)陔娨暽峡吹竭@樣的例子，即除了一些智力競(jìng)賽（如數(shù)學(xué)、常識(shí)，我只對(duì)語(yǔ)言有興趣），幼兒會(huì)因?yàn)樗麄兡軌虮痴b上百首唐詩(shī)而得到獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)。結(jié)果“小大人”常被看成兒童發(fā)展的成功典范，這在他們的日常語(yǔ)言行為中表現(xiàn)得尤為突出。“過(guò)度保護(hù)”“溺愛(ài)”或培養(yǎng)孩子的超前意識(shí)/目標(biāo)，都會(huì)對(duì)語(yǔ)言產(chǎn)生嚴(yán)重的后果，對(duì)此我們需要進(jìn)行系統(tǒng)的研究。

同胞互動(dòng)的缺失帶來(lái)的語(yǔ)言影響值得特別關(guān)注。雖然有足夠的同齡人之間的交往，但這種交往屬于“陌生人間的互動(dòng)”，在性質(zhì)上是非家族的、非親屬的。表面上看，他們?nèi)鄙倭朔墙y(tǒng)稱(chēng)形式的親屬稱(chēng)謂（如姑姑、舅舅等統(tǒng)稱(chēng)形式的，如叔叔、阿姨等和這些不同）。我們還注意到，在幼兒園和校園環(huán)境，孩子們與非家庭成員的同齡人間交流的話題通常與家庭無(wú)關(guān)，幾乎不討論日常家庭生活。他們只能從大人那里獲取家庭生活方面的語(yǔ)言輸入。這必然會(huì)產(chǎn)生一定的長(zhǎng)期影響。孩子們?cè)谟變簣@和學(xué)校那里得到的輸入模式往往來(lái)自于閱讀/文字材料、媒體和成人。我們有必要對(duì)此進(jìn)行更深入的研究。

另一個(gè)獨(dú)生子女政策對(duì)語(yǔ)言產(chǎn)生特殊影響的領(lǐng)域或議題是隔代教養(yǎng)。我對(duì)隔代教養(yǎng)的關(guān)注已有一段時(shí)間，主要是因?yàn)槲业难芯恐攸c(diǎn)在海外中國(guó)人社區(qū)。我們從過(guò)去的語(yǔ)言研究中得知，祖父母的角色在語(yǔ)言傳播、語(yǔ)言保持和語(yǔ)言轉(zhuǎn)換上至關(guān)重要。祖父母往往在保持本族語(yǔ)言、少數(shù)民族語(yǔ)言、 家庭語(yǔ)言或繼承語(yǔ)言方面起到關(guān)鍵作用。在海外的中國(guó)家庭中，祖父母經(jīng)常是中文輸入的主要來(lái)源，其中包括方言。我們?cè)鴮?duì)說(shuō)客家話的家庭進(jìn)行了研究，結(jié)果顯示，隨著祖父母的去世，其語(yǔ)言也隨之消亡，家人最終經(jīng)歷了語(yǔ)言的轉(zhuǎn)變。在當(dāng)代獨(dú)生子女的中國(guó)家庭里，由于父母平時(shí)忙于工作和賺錢(qián)，爺爺奶奶在養(yǎng)育子女方面發(fā)揮著關(guān)鍵作用。在中國(guó)，祖父母以及成年陌生人（保姆）在育兒方面的參與度比世界任何一個(gè)地方都要多，這在一些西方國(guó)家是聞所未聞的。大多數(shù)城市的中國(guó)家庭由保姆和爺爺奶奶一起照顧孩子。有趣的是，方言傳承并沒(méi)有成為中國(guó)城市家庭生活的常態(tài)。即使?fàn)敔斈棠炭赡苁欠窖允褂谜?，并且保姆也可能是，但小孩講的話通常仍是標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的或者至少是超地方的語(yǔ)言（超地方方言標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是方言學(xué)、歷史語(yǔ)言學(xué)和社會(huì)語(yǔ)言學(xué)研究的一個(gè)重大課題）。當(dāng)前，人們對(duì)漢語(yǔ)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)語(yǔ)轉(zhuǎn)換普遍持積極態(tài)度。它可能不一定是普通話，而是一些地方標(biāo)準(zhǔn)語(yǔ)，但絕對(duì)不是地方方言。同時(shí)，人們對(duì)幼兒進(jìn)行的所謂雙語(yǔ)教育也產(chǎn)生了極大的興趣，即讓他們學(xué)習(xí)英語(yǔ)，而且相信越早接觸英語(yǔ)越好。

不過(guò)，祖父母對(duì)兒童的影響，特別是對(duì)兒童語(yǔ)言發(fā)展的影響不僅在方言的保存上面。這還與老年人對(duì)年幼孩子的講話方式、詞匯的選擇和語(yǔ)法結(jié)構(gòu)有關(guān)。語(yǔ)言的變化主要通過(guò)代際交流發(fā)生。祖孫之間更多互動(dòng)的結(jié)果可能是兩個(gè)非常不同的發(fā)展方向——聚合或離散。當(dāng)兩代人相互學(xué)習(xí)并適應(yīng)對(duì)方時(shí)會(huì)發(fā)生聚合，反之則離散。這是一個(gè)非常有趣的話題，值得繼續(xù)探索，該話題對(duì)某種語(yǔ)言的結(jié)構(gòu)變化也會(huì)造成實(shí)質(zhì)性影響。

還有許多議題和問(wèn)題值得探討。例如，夫妻雙方都是獨(dú)生子女，他們之間的互動(dòng)（“獨(dú)二代”之間的交流）問(wèn)題（與兒童語(yǔ)言發(fā)展無(wú)關(guān)，但關(guān)乎成人語(yǔ)言的使用），不受獨(dú)生子女政策影響的少數(shù)民族語(yǔ)言之間的比較，城市和農(nóng)村之間語(yǔ)言的比較等，都值得探討。

隨著獨(dú)生子女生育政策的放寬，我們會(huì)看到一批二孩出現(xiàn)，有些二孩在第一個(gè)孩子出生10年后才出生。這樣的年齡差距會(huì)對(duì)孩子的語(yǔ)言發(fā)展和語(yǔ)言行為產(chǎn)生什么樣的影響，將成為未來(lái)研究的一個(gè)重要課題。

我上面所談到的研究是一個(gè)正在發(fā)展的研究領(lǐng)域，即“人口語(yǔ)言學(xué)”的一部分。人口語(yǔ)言學(xué)一方面關(guān)注人口的結(jié)構(gòu)和變化之間復(fù)雜的相互關(guān)系，另一方面聚焦于人口結(jié)構(gòu)和語(yǔ)言發(fā)展、語(yǔ)言變化、語(yǔ)言保持、語(yǔ)言轉(zhuǎn)變、語(yǔ)言規(guī)劃之間的關(guān)系。這不同于“語(yǔ)言人口學(xué)”，它主要研究語(yǔ)言分布在統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)上的解釋。

在過(guò)去的二十年中，人口語(yǔ)言學(xué)已成為人口學(xué)和語(yǔ)言學(xué)的國(guó)際性交叉學(xué)科。有些人甚至認(rèn)為近期語(yǔ)言景觀方面的研究與其有所關(guān)聯(lián)或者是其延伸的內(nèi)容。人口語(yǔ)言學(xué)研究往往側(cè)重于家庭等私人領(lǐng)域內(nèi)語(yǔ)言的時(shí)空分布和動(dòng)態(tài)；語(yǔ)言景觀研究，從字面意義上講，更關(guān)注公共領(lǐng)域，即街頭巷尾可見(jiàn)的語(yǔ)言。在這個(gè)意義上，語(yǔ)言景觀研究的結(jié)果不應(yīng)該被視作某地區(qū)人口語(yǔ)言構(gòu)成的事實(shí)依據(jù)。

人口語(yǔ)言學(xué)研究的一個(gè)關(guān)注重點(diǎn)是某些語(yǔ)言而非“民族”語(yǔ)言的活力問(wèn)題。在特定語(yǔ)境或視角下，這類(lèi)語(yǔ)言常指少數(shù)民族語(yǔ)言或主流語(yǔ)言。因?yàn)閿?shù)字分類(lèi)與社會(huì)分類(lèi)不一定重合，因此，對(duì)這些語(yǔ)言感興趣的研究人員討論數(shù)字但又不僅限于數(shù)字，除數(shù)字外還需考慮權(quán)力和意識(shí)形態(tài)問(wèn)題。

在我進(jìn)行的人口語(yǔ)言學(xué)研究中，我對(duì)人口的統(tǒng)計(jì)分布不太感興趣，這雖然是人口學(xué)作為一個(gè)調(diào)查領(lǐng)域的重要組成部分，但不是唯一的部分。我更感興趣的是人口素質(zhì)和在特定社區(qū)或社會(huì)中的人口構(gòu)成的本質(zhì)，即人口動(dòng)態(tài)性。這是人口學(xué)研究的新潮流，可以用于分析任何形式的現(xiàn)居住人口的特征，即在時(shí)間和空間上的變化。它涵蓋了人口的規(guī)模、結(jié)構(gòu)、分布，以及因出生、遷移、老齡化、死亡所引起的空間或時(shí)間上的變化。的確，它往往會(huì)涉及定量問(wèn)題——人口統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)，但人口學(xué)家當(dāng)今所談?wù)摰拇蠖鄶?shù)問(wèn)題實(shí)際上都是與人口動(dòng)態(tài)有關(guān)的社會(huì)變化。許多大學(xué)把人口統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)視作社會(huì)學(xué)的一部分，因?yàn)樯鐣?huì)學(xué)關(guān)注民族、宗教、種族和社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)階級(jí)。有些人將形式/結(jié)構(gòu)人口學(xué)（或人口統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)）與社會(huì)人口學(xué)或人口研究加以區(qū)別，形式/結(jié)構(gòu)人口學(xué)主要關(guān)注人口演變過(guò)程的測(cè)量，社會(huì)人口學(xué)或人口研究則著眼于影響人口的經(jīng)濟(jì)、社會(huì)、文化和生物這些進(jìn)程之間的關(guān)系。

社會(huì)語(yǔ)言學(xué)及應(yīng)用語(yǔ)言學(xué)中，許多探討人口和語(yǔ)言關(guān)系的問(wèn)題，逐漸發(fā)展成為人口語(yǔ)言學(xué)。在我所感興趣的研究領(lǐng)域中，雙語(yǔ)制和多語(yǔ)制、語(yǔ)言保持和語(yǔ)言轉(zhuǎn)變、語(yǔ)言流失和語(yǔ)言死亡是人口語(yǔ)言學(xué)的中心議題。這些問(wèn)題顯然與某些語(yǔ)言使用者的數(shù)量和人口變化，以及對(duì)語(yǔ)言使用、語(yǔ)言結(jié)構(gòu)和語(yǔ)言命運(yùn)的變化有關(guān)。還有許多學(xué)者和政策制定者對(duì)在語(yǔ)言教學(xué)中可能成為全球語(yǔ)言的中文傳播感興趣。因此，他們對(duì)人口語(yǔ)言學(xué)充滿(mǎn)興趣，并且特別關(guān)注人口動(dòng)態(tài)——誰(shuí)是學(xué)習(xí)者，他們分布在哪里，以及如何讓漢語(yǔ)教學(xué)在某些國(guó)家得到可持續(xù)性發(fā)展。漢語(yǔ)使用者遍布世界各地，但主要是華裔。與阿拉伯語(yǔ)、英語(yǔ)、法語(yǔ)、西班牙語(yǔ)、俄語(yǔ)，甚至和許多其他語(yǔ)言相比，將中文作為其主要語(yǔ)言的非華裔人口數(shù)量十分有限。有鑒于此，我們是否應(yīng)該將中文作為繼承語(yǔ)言和作為國(guó)際性語(yǔ)言加以區(qū)別？

如前所述，我感興趣的不是簡(jiǎn)單的數(shù)字，而是人口構(gòu)成和人口動(dòng)態(tài)的本質(zhì)。例如，老齡化似乎是發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家的一個(gè)主要社會(huì)現(xiàn)象，盡管嬰兒死亡與少女懷孕仍是非洲和其他欠發(fā)達(dá)或發(fā)展中國(guó)家的共同現(xiàn)象。由這些現(xiàn)象導(dǎo)致的語(yǔ)言后果是什么？在不同國(guó)家和不同語(yǔ)言文化背景下，不同世代間隔的意味著什么？ 例如，與一個(gè)世代間隔為35年或更長(zhǎng)的社區(qū)相比，一個(gè)世代間隔小于20年的社區(qū)，對(duì)語(yǔ)言的影響是什么？從語(yǔ)言隔代研究的結(jié)果我們了解到，不同年齡段語(yǔ)言使用者所使用的語(yǔ)言是不同的。那么，不同世代間隔是否導(dǎo)致語(yǔ)言結(jié)構(gòu)變化呢？世代間隔的長(zhǎng)短是否會(huì)影響語(yǔ)言變化的快慢呢？這些問(wèn)題都還沒(méi)有答案，但都是非常有趣且重要的問(wèn)題。混合語(yǔ)言婚姻是另一個(gè)例子。哪種或哪些語(yǔ)言是經(jīng)過(guò)世代傳承的以及傳承的方式如何，從長(zhǎng)遠(yuǎn)來(lái)看，這是一個(gè)非常有意義的重要議題。

中國(guó)新的政策措施和由此帶來(lái)的人口變化為我們研究其對(duì)語(yǔ)言的影響和進(jìn)一步發(fā)展人口統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)提供了非常難得的機(jī)遇。我衷心希望，中國(guó)的研究者能夠抓住這一機(jī)遇，開(kāi)展高質(zhì)量的實(shí)證研究，所有這些將具有深遠(yuǎn)的理論意義和實(shí)踐意義。

（北京外國(guó)語(yǔ)大學(xué) 張?zhí)靷?、李艷紅譯）

Language and Demography： Implications of Chinas Family Planning Policies and Demographic Changes for Language and Linguistics

University of London Li Wei

Since 2005， the Chinese authorities have been com?mis??????sioning a series of reports on language use in social life in China. This has been a major development in the study of language in China and has attracted a great deal of attention overseas. The English language editions of selected articles from these reports are now available from De Gruyter. These reports refocused our attention to the intrinsic connections between social policies and what is happening in society broadly， on the one hand， and language use and language structures， on the other. For a society like that of the Chinese， these connections are of crucial significance， and any sensible and useful study of language needs to take them into consideration seriously and systematically.

More recently， there have been a number of key policy initiatives that have direct and significant impacts on language and studies of language. For example， the One Belt One Road initiative has already attracted a great deal of attention amongst linguists and language policy makers. Another policy initiative， the one that I am particularly interested in and the one that I feel also has important implications for language and language studies， is that of family planning， specifically the recent relaxation of the one couple one child policy in urban areas.

The one couple one child policy was part of a broader Family Planning （or birth control） policy that started in the 1950s. The strictest form of the policy was only ever implemented in specific areas of China for 3-4 years in the early 1980s. Purely in terms of birth control， the policy appeared to be a clear success. According to the statistics from the World Bank， Chinas national birth rate fell from 2.61 per woman of childbearing age to 1.45 between 1990 and 2000， much lower than many developed countries. Demographers and China watchers estimated that China prevented between 200 million and 400 million births between the 1980s and 2010.

The impacts of the policy are much more wide-ranging and fundamental. It has led to a 4-2-1 structure of Chinese families， with a severe ageing population of 1/3 over 60 years of age， and only about 48% of the population at working age， according to UN statistics. The World Factbook， by CIA， has the sex ratio of the Chinese population at 1.119：1 （male to female）.These have huge consequences for the economy （welfare）， national security （army）， and culture （ethnic minority vs Han Chinese birth ratio in the 2010 census was 11%-17% against national average of 8%； urban vs rural） of the nation.

I am of course primarily interested in the linguistic consequences of the One Couple One Child Policy， what impact the policy has had on the language practices and indeed the structures of the language. This remains an explored area. And it is time that we start doing some serious empirical research. The key area for investigation has to be child language acquisition and development. Whilst most linguists accept that human beings are pre-wired for language acquisition， input and environment play crucial roles in how language is acquired and developed in infant and childhood. We know for a fact that the amount of attention a child receives from the primary caregiver is important， so is the linguistic model（s） （the kind of input） they receive. We also know that peer interaction is equally crucial， where gender also plays a role. Once a upon a time， researchers were concerned that traditional Chinese child rearing practices， such as carrying the child on the mothers back， as opposed to carrying them on the front， might reduce the amount of joint attention between the child and the mother as the primary caregiver and therefore reduces the amount of input and the quality of the input which would be important for language development. Now a typical Chinese child in a one couple one child family may have too much attention， as they are the only child in the family. There is an abundant amount of stimuli – toys， books， television， electronic devices， games， etc. It does not mean that there is more ‘joint attention， certainly not always with the parents. But the fact is that the linguistic modelling they receive is largely ‘a(chǎn)dult， even ‘elderly because of the grandparents involvement. There is a lack of sibling model， and no sibling interaction – sibling interaction is qualitatively different from that of peer （same age group） interaction. This is coupled with a societal culture that encourages apparent early maturity in young children. We see on TV， for example， young children are praised to be able to recite hundreds of Tang poems， apart from other intelligence-oriented competition （maths， general knowledge – Im only interested in language here）. So， ‘Little Adult （小大人）is often pre?sented as a successful model of child development， and it is particularly vivid in their everyday language behaviour. Issues regarding ‘over-protectiveness or even spoiling the child （嬌慣）； the parents pushiness in developing the child ahead of time （‘超前意識(shí)/目標(biāo)）， all have serious linguistics consequences that need to be studied systematically.

The specific linguistic effects of lack of sibling interaction deserves particular attention. There is sufficient peer interaction， but they are all ‘stranger interaction， with non-family/non-relatives. We know superficially that there is lack of use of non-generic kinship terms， such as 姑姑，舅舅， etc. But we notice that topics children talk about with non-family peers， usually in nursery and school contexts， are not domestic ones， i.e. not about everyday family life. They only have input about the language of domestic life from adults. This must have some long-term consequences. The input models the children get in nurseries and schools tend to come from reading/print material， the media， and in adult forms. We certainly need to look into it more.

Another area or topic where the one couple one child policy has had a distinctive impact on language is grandparenting. I have been interested in grandparenting for some time， mainly because of my work in the overseas Chinese communities. We know from many generations of linguistic research that the role of grandparents is crucial in language transmission， language maintenance and language shift. Grandparents often hold the key role in keeping alive regional dialects or ethnic minority/home/heritage languages. In the overseas Chinese families， grandparents are often the main source of input of Chinese， including Chinese dialects， and we have studied Hakka-speaking families where the language died with the grandparents and the family subsequently experienced a language shift. In contemporary Chinese families with one child only， the grandparents also play a key role in child rearing， simply because the parents are usually very busy working and making money. It is a lot more common in China， than anywhere else in the world to involve grandparents， as well as adult strangers （阿姨‘nannies）， in child rearing – unheard of in some western societies. Most urban Chinese families have nannies as well as grandparents looking after the child. Intriguingly， however， dialect transmission does not appear tobe the norm in urban Chinese families. So， even though the grandparents may be dialect speakers， and the nannies might be too， the speech norm that is used with young children is typically standard， or at least supra-local （supralocal dialect levelling is a major topic of research in dialectology， historical linguistics and sociolinguistics）. There is an overwhelming positive attitude towards shifting to standard varieties of Chinese. It may not always be Putonghua. It could be some local standard， but definitely not regional dialects. In the meantime， there is also great interest in the so-called bilingual education to very young children， i.e. teaching them English， and the popular belief that the earlier the exposure to English the better.

But the influence of grandparents on children and especially on the childrens language development is a lot more than just dialect maintenance. It relates to the way older adults speak， including their lexical choice and grammatical structures， to young children. Language change takes place primarily through inter-generational interaction. The consequences of more interactions that involve grandparents and grandchildren may have two very different directions – convergence， or divergence. Convergence when the two generations learn from each other and accommodate to each other. Divergence when they dont. This is an extremely interesting topic to explore further， a topic that has real substantial consequences to the changes of the linguistic structures of the language.

There are many other topics and questions that could be investigated. For example， interactions between couples who are single child themselves （‘獨(dú)二代之間的交流）. This is not about child language development， but about adult language use. Comparisons between the so-called ethnic minority languages in China who are not directly affected by the one couple one child policy with the Han Chinese， and between rural and urban areas， are also worth doing.

With the new relaxation of the One Couple One Child policy， we are predicting to see a new group of second children， born some 10 years after the first. How such age gaps will impact on the language development of the children and the language practices within the family will become an important topic for future research.

The research I have suggested above is part of a developing field， known as ‘demographical linguistics. Demographical Linguistics concerns the complex inter?relationships between demographic patterns and changes on the one hand， and language development， language change， language maintenance and language shift， and language planning， on the other. It is different from ‘linguistic demography – statistical account of the distribution of languages.

Over the last twenty years， Demographical Linguistics has become an international crossing for demography and linguistics. Some even see the more recent develop?ments in the so-called linguistic landscaping research as connected with it or an extension of it. Whereas demo?graphical linguistic studies tend to focus on the spatial and temporal distribution and vitality of languages in the private domains of the home， linguistic landscaping has as its focus the public domain in the most literal sense， i.e.， in terms of the visibility and display of languages on the streets. In this sense， the outcomes of linguistic landscaping research shouldnt be taken as the facts of the linguistic make-up of the population in a given place.

One of the key concerns of demographical linguistics is the vitality of languages other than “national” languages. Depending on particular contexts or perspectives， such languages are often referred to as minority languages or dominated languages. Numerical classifications do not necessarily coincide with social classifications. So researchers who are interested in these languages talk about numbers but are not solely concerned with numbers. There are issues of power and ideology that need to be considered.

In my studies of demography and linguistics， I am less interested in the statistical distribution of the population， which is an important part but not the only important part of demography as a field of inquiry. I am more interested in the quality of the population， and nature of the composition of the population in specific communities or societies – in other words， population dynamics. And that is at the heart of a new wave of demographic research， to analyze any kind of dynamic living population， i.e.， one that changes over time or space. It encompasses the study of the size， structure， and distribution of these populations， and spatial or temporal changes in them in response to birth， migration， ageing， and death. Yes， it often talks in quantitative terms – the demographics， but most of the questions demographers are asking nowadays are actually about social change in relation to population dynamics. Many universities treat demography as part of Sociology because of its interests in nationality， religion， ethnicity， and socio-economic class. Some people make the distinction between formal/structural demography （or demographics） which is primarily concerned with the measurement of population processes， and social demography or population studies which focus on the relationships between economic， social， cultural and biological processes influencing a population.

Many topics in socio- and applied linguistics deal with the relationship between demography and language， which give rises to Demographical Linguistics. In the areas that I am particularly interested in， which are bilingualism and multilingualism， language maintenance and language shift， language loss and language death are all central topics in this field. They are clearly related to the number of speakers of particular languages and how demographic changes affect language use， the structures of the languages and the fate of the languages. Many scholars and policy makers alike are interested in the spread of Chinese as a possible global language through language teaching. They should therefore be interested in demographical linguistics and pay specific attention to population dynamics： who the learners are， where they are and how sustainable Chinese language teaching is in specific countries. Chinese speakers are found all over the world， but mainly amongst ethnic Chinese people. The number of people who are not ethnic Chinese but who speak Chinese as their primary language is extremely limited， compared to Arabic， English， French， Spanish， even Russian， and many other world languages. Should there be a distinction between teaching Chinese as a Heritage language and Chinese as an international language？

As I said earlier， what I am interested in is not simply the numbers， but the nature of the composition of the population or population dynamics. For example， ageing seems to be a major social phenomenon in developed countries， though infant death and teenage pregnancy are still a common phenomena in Africa and other under-developed or developing countries. What are the linguistic consequences of these？ What are the implications of different generation intervals in different countries and cultures for language – for instance， what are the linguistic consequences of one community whose generation intervals are under 20 years， compared to， say， another community whose generation intervals are 35 or over？ We know from generations of linguistic research that different age groups of speakers use language differently. Will the language structures change as a result of the different generation intervals？ Will linguistic change be faster or slower if the intervals are shorter or longer？ These are all questions with unknown answers right now. They are extremely interesting and important questions. Mixed language marriage is another example. What language or languages are being transmitted through the generations and how， is an important topic with long-term implications.

The new policy initiatives and population changes in China provide us with a unique opportunity to study their impact on language and subsequently contribute to the further development of Demographic Linguistics. I sincerely hope that researchers in China will seize this opportunity and conduct high-quality empirical research that will have long term theoretical and practical significance.