語言政策與規(guī)劃的過去、現(xiàn)在和未來

托馬斯·李圣托

值此《語言戰(zhàn)略研究》（CJLPP）正式創(chuàng)刊之際，衷心地向該刊所屬出版社以及各位編委表示熱烈的祝賀。作為2002年開始出版發(fā)行的《語言、身份與教育期刊》（JLIE）的聯(lián)合創(chuàng)始人，我特別能體會到日后將要面臨的挑戰(zhàn)與艱辛。但我也相信，在中國與國際編委組成的團隊的共同努力下，該刊的前景將是極為燦爛和光明的。

語言政策與規(guī)劃（LPP）領(lǐng)域?qū)^續(xù)引發(fā)各位學(xué)者和從業(yè)者的關(guān)注和興趣，而這種關(guān)注度在中國過去的10年中已經(jīng)得到了相當(dāng)大的提升。CJLPP的創(chuàng)立進一步證明，在中國和亞洲其他國家，這個領(lǐng)域正受到越來越高的重視。有感于這種趨勢，我認為有必要對LPP這個領(lǐng)域發(fā)表一些自己的看法，包括它的歷史以及未來的發(fā)展趨勢。雖然我認為目前還沒有“什么宏大的理論能用來解釋語言行為的模式……或者預(yù)測某個特定的語言政策會對語言行為造成哪些影響”（Ricento 2006：17）。但我同時認為，在理論和方法論方面，許多強大的傳統(tǒng)都已經(jīng)逐步建立起來了。特別是在過去的半個世紀(jì)里，這些傳統(tǒng)已經(jīng)讓人們清晰地感覺到語言政策和語言規(guī)劃是學(xué)術(shù)探索中一個具有合理內(nèi)核的領(lǐng)域，它在我們對社會語言的理解方面做出了重要的貢獻。

在介紹《語言政策與規(guī)劃：語言學(xué)的重要概念》（Ricento 2015）這一四卷本的著作時，我全面細致地回顧了從1959年至2014年間該領(lǐng)域的發(fā)展。其中，第一卷名為《理論和歷史基礎(chǔ)》，由22篇文章構(gòu)成。對本卷中出現(xiàn)的學(xué)者，我一一注明他們豐富多樣的學(xué)科背景、研究視角及研究興趣。在這幅拼圖中，每篇文章都作為“拼圖中的一片”闡述了語言是如何在生活中“起作用”的，哪些類型的語言學(xué)、社會、歷史、經(jīng)濟和政治現(xiàn)象值得仔細研究，哪些類型的規(guī)劃在不同社會背景下是可能的并且是適宜的。LPP的跨學(xué)科性質(zhì)，對該領(lǐng)域來說，一直是必不可少的，而且在未來仍將發(fā)揮重要的作用。第二卷名為《語言政策和語言權(quán)利》，其中，文章的跨度長達45年，涉及法律、語言學(xué)、政治理論、社會學(xué)等其他學(xué)科的相關(guān)主題和課題。該卷涵蓋的主題包括語言歧視、少數(shù)民族語言權(quán)利、語言人權(quán)、規(guī)范的語言哲學(xué)、語言政策與民族主義以及語言多樣性的保護。這些研究方向正逐漸被中國學(xué)者納入自己的研究中。我希望CJLPP能在這些重要的研究領(lǐng)域發(fā)揮其在期刊界的倡導(dǎo)作用。第三卷涉及教育方面的語言政策。其中的文章為讀者提供了各類視角來研究語言實踐是如何被多種因素所影響的，而關(guān)注的焦點就是正式和非正式的教育環(huán)境。本卷的主題覆蓋了與公立學(xué)校語言課程設(shè)置密切相關(guān)的政策和政治，包括對某種語言變體進行選擇的決策機制，以及這種選擇帶來的后果，尤其是在少數(shù)民族社區(qū)背景下。第四卷的關(guān)注點是語言政策和語言全球化。入選該卷的文章著重思考語言、語言實踐與政策是如何疊加在人群、資本與文化的洪流之上的，并將重點放在從20世紀(jì)最后10年一直到今天的這段時間內(nèi)。討論的主題包括“全球英語”在世界各個國家的語言與語言政策中扮演的角色和造成的影響。尤其令人感興趣的是英語在非洲和亞洲后殖民環(huán)境中扮演的角色、英語的教與學(xué)能否（以及在多大程度上）對低收入國家的社會和經(jīng)濟發(fā)展產(chǎn)生（積極或消極）的影響、英語在跨文化交流方面能否（以及多大程度上）充當(dāng)一個真正的通用語的角色。這些主題不僅引起了中國學(xué)者、教育工作者以及政策制定者的濃厚興趣，在世界上許多非英語主導(dǎo)的國家中也是如此。在這些地方，英語被作為一項接受高等教育、增加就業(yè)機會的必要工具而得到推廣，尤其是在知識經(jīng)濟領(lǐng)域。

James Tollefson（2013：28）認為在當(dāng)今的LPP研究中存在著兩種研究范式的張力：一種是歷史—結(jié)構(gòu)范式，另一種是可總稱為“公共領(lǐng)域研究”的范式。Tollefson（2013：29）認為，歷史—結(jié)構(gòu)范式有助于理解國家和其他強權(quán)機構(gòu)在何種情況下能夠通過語言政策將其意愿強加于個體和社區(qū)。公共領(lǐng)域研究范式有助于理解在何種情況下個體和社區(qū)能夠主動地參與他們自身的語言學(xué)習(xí)和語言使用。兩種方法都是必要的，前提是LPP研究的一個重要目標(biāo)是了解語言與其主導(dǎo)和從屬系統(tǒng)之間的關(guān)系，以便減少不平等，并促進社會全體成員的共融性和民族參與度。這個向社會公平的傾斜一直存在于LPP理論創(chuàng)建與研究之中，也許最好的詮釋來自德爾·海姆斯，他提倡“調(diào)解的”而非“萃取的”語言民族論。這是一種行動主義和干涉主義的科學(xué)，它號召人們追求“這樣一種人文主義，它能夠處理具體情況，會遭受一些實際中的不平等，但因為認識到語言實際上可以被組織為人類問題和人類資源，它會幫助扭轉(zhuǎn)這些不平等”（Hymes 1996：vii）。

（北京信息科技大學(xué) 程京艷譯）

The Past， the Present， and the

Future of LPP

University of Calgary Thomas Ricento

I want to congratulate the publisher and editors of the Chinese Journal of Language Policy and Planning （CJLPP） on their inaugural issue. Having co-founded the Journal of Language， Identity and Education （JLIE）， which began publication in 2002， I can especially appreciate the challenges and hard work that lie ahead. I am confident that with the team that has been assembled， both in China and internationally， the future for this journal is extremely promising.

The field of language policy and planning continues to engage the interest of scholars and practitioners， and this interest has seen considerable growth in China over the past decade. The launch of CJLPP is further proof of the increasing interest in LPP in China and other countries in Asia. In view of this trend， it is appropriate that I offer a few comments on the field of LPP， including its history and what the future may hold. While I have argued that there is not， as yet，“some grand theory which explains patterns of language behavior…or can predict the effects of specific language policies on language behavior”（Ricento 2006： 17）， there are various strong traditions in theory and methodology that have evolved， especially over the past half century， that have led to the clear sense that language policy and planning is a legi?timate field of academic inquiry that has made important contributions to our understanding of language in society.

In the introduction to the four-volume collection Language Policy and Planning： Critical Concepts in Linguistics （Ricento 2015）， I provide a comprehensive review of the development of the field， spanning the years 1959 to 2014. In discussing the 22 articles that comprise Volume I， Theoretical and Historical Foundations， I note the rich and varied disciplinary backgrounds， perspectives， and interests of the scholars represented in the volume， each contributing ‘pieces of the puzzle on how language（s） ‘work in society， what sorts of linguistic， social， historical， economic， and political phenomena are worth looking at in detail， and what sorts of planning might be possible and desirable in different contexts. The interdisciplinary nature of LPP has always been integral to the field and will continue to be important in the future. Volume II （Language Policy and Language Rights） contains articles that span forty-five years and deal with topics and issues that have engaged the disciplines of law， linguistics， political theory， and sociology， among other disciplines； topics covered in the articles include linguistic discrimination， minority language rights， linguistic human rights， normative language philosophy， language policy and nationalism， and the survival of linguistic diversity. These are all topics that are increasingly being taken up by Chinese scholars and I hope that CJLPP will provide editorial leadership in these important areas of research. Volume III deals with Language Policy in Education and the articles provide a range of perspectives on how language practices are influenced by a multitude of factors， with a focus on educational contexts， both formal and informal. Topics covered in this volume include policies and politics surrounding the choice of language of instruction in public schools， including decisions about the particular language variety chosen， and the consequences of such decisions， especially on minority language communities. Volume IV focuses on Language Policy and Globalization and the articles in this volume consider the ways in which languages， and language practices and policies， are imbricated in flows of people， capital， and cultures with a focus on the last decades of the 20th century through the present day. Topics addressed include the role and effects of ‘global English on languages and language policies in states around the world. Of particular interest is the role that English plays in post-colonial contexts in Africa and Asia and whether， and to what degree， the teaching and learning of English influences （positively and negatively） social and economic development in low-income countries， and whether （and to what degree） English serves as a bona fide lingua franca for intercultural communication. These are topics of great interest to scholars， educators， and policy-makers not only in China， but in many non-English dominant countries around the world where English is promoted as an essential tool for gaining access to higher education and enhancing job opportunities， especially in the knowledge economy.

James Tollefson （2013： 28） argues that today in LPP research there is a tension between two paradigms： the historical-structural approach， on the one hand， and various approaches that coalesce under the heading ‘public sphere（s）. According to Tollefson （2013： 29）， the historical-structural approach is useful for understanding the conditions under which the state and other powerful institutions can impose their will on individuals and communities through language policies， while public sphere approaches help us better understand the conditions under which individuals and communities act as agents in their own language learning and language use. Both approaches are necessary if an important goal of research in LPP is to understand the relationship between language and systems of domination and subordination in order to reduce inequality and promote greater inclusion and democratic participation for all members of civil society. This arc towards social justice has always been present in LPP theorizing and research， perhaps best articulated by Dell Hymes in his call for a ‘mediative as opposed to an ‘extractive ethnography of language， that is a science of activism and intervention that beckons us to aspire to“…a humanism which can deal with concrete situations， with the inequalities that actually obtain， and help to transform them through knowledge of the ways in which language is actually organized as a human problem and resource”（Hymes 1996： vii）.

References

Hymes， Dell. 1996. Ethnography， Linguistics， Narrative Inequality： Toward an Understanding of Voice. London： Taylor & Francis.

Ricento， Thomas. 2006. Language Policy： Theory and Practice： An Introduction. In Thomas Ricento （ed.）. An Introduction to Language Policy： Theory and Method. Malden： Blackwell.

Ricento， Thomas （ed.）. 2015. Language Policy and Planning： Critical Concepts in Linguistics （four volumes）. New York： Routledge.

Tollefson， James. 2013. Language Policy in a Time of Crisis and Transformation. In James Tollefson （ed.）. Language Policies in Education： Critical Issues （2nd edition）. New York： Routledge.