語言規(guī)劃的重要性

約翰·愛德華茲

1966年埃納·豪根概述了語言規(guī)劃的四個主要方面：規(guī)范的選擇、規(guī)范的編典、功能的實施和功能的完善，這一理論模式一直是語言規(guī)劃學科的核心內(nèi)容。規(guī)范的選擇和功能的實施（通常被稱為“地位規(guī)劃”）主要探討語言之外的事情，具備更多的社會屬性，而語言的編典和功能的完善（通常被稱為“本體規(guī)劃”）往往直接研究語言本身。通過這些線索，語言規(guī)劃的操作在理論上是非常明確的。例如，當出現(xiàn)一個有關語言變體選擇的問題時，我們就可據(jù)此來操作，首先是語言的標準化，提供書寫形式、規(guī)范的語法、正字法和詞匯；其次是語言規(guī)劃的實施，即通過官方文件、教育和媒體等渠道來傳播該語言變體；再次是語言規(guī)劃的評價，在這個階段，通常是利用各種評價程序來監(jiān)控所選語言變體的接受度；最后是語言的完善，即保持語言與時俱進的活力，其中最顯著的內(nèi)容是詞匯的現(xiàn)代化及擴充。

至今，對語言規(guī)劃領域最全面的概述是羅伯特·卡普蘭和理查德·巴爾道夫1997年合作的專著《語言規(guī)劃：從實踐到理論》，他們也是創(chuàng)辦《語言規(guī)劃的現(xiàn)實問題》這一重要期刊的編輯，該刊已經(jīng)出版發(fā)行16年了。更受人尊敬的期刊是1977年創(chuàng)刊的《語言問題與語言規(guī)劃》，現(xiàn)在還有很多其他刊物也發(fā)表與語言規(guī)劃相關的論文。

語言規(guī)劃，特別是語言的選擇和功能的實施，是一個負載著重要價值的行為。任何公正的理論在實踐中都要做出一定的妥協(xié)，語言規(guī)劃通常在充滿各種爭議的場景中應用，這些場景包括“小”的或瀕危語言的保存和復活、通用語的建立、大型多語區(qū)域中便利溝通渠道的開通等。語言規(guī)劃會不可避免地受意識形態(tài)的驅(qū)動，因此，有些語言規(guī)劃被賦予意識形態(tài)的色彩，對某些群體來說是進步的規(guī)劃，對其他群體來說，可能就是一種迫害。所有形式的語言規(guī)劃在某種程度上來說都是規(guī)范性的，因為所有的規(guī)劃都預設著某些意圖和預期結果。現(xiàn)代的學術研究反對“規(guī)范性”，與之相關的理念認為語言變化是個持續(xù)的、自然的過程，而且從當代語言學的角度來理解，語言的廣泛使用是檢驗“正確性”的最終標準，因此，語言規(guī)劃中存在各種緊張關系的現(xiàn)象就可想而知了。于是，1997年卡普蘭和巴爾道夫認為“語言規(guī)劃者”有時處于語言描寫和規(guī)范之間。一方面，現(xiàn)在語言規(guī)劃者大多數(shù)是學者出身，這就意味著他們將秉持公正的立場；另一方面，他們的工作至少需要包含一些規(guī)范性因素。很顯然，代表“小”語言或方言所進行的干預具有規(guī)定性的特點，同時，歷史記錄也表明，在規(guī)劃和選擇某種標準語時，不管是選擇一種方言，還是選擇幾種方言的組合體，通常會引起較大的爭議。甚至詞典編纂，也涉及一些規(guī)范性因素，如詞語的收錄或排除，一些俚語的使用要達到什么程度才能被列為詞目等。

作為一個負載著重要價值的行為，語言規(guī)劃必須處在學術和社會的交叉點上，存在于我們所希望的公正的學術動機和我們所知道的某一具體的社會動機之間，通常后者居主導地位。語言規(guī)劃中有很多令人震驚的例子是為政治認同服務的，這不足為奇，其中一個例子涉及一種在傳統(tǒng)上被稱為塞爾維亞—克羅地亞語的語言（簡稱塞克語）。自十九世紀中葉以來，塞克語被視為一種被廣泛接受的交際媒介，它不僅被塞爾維亞人和克羅地亞人使用，也被波斯尼亞人和黑山人使用。然而，現(xiàn)在塞克語不再被作為一種官方語言而存在，并逐漸被波斯尼亞語、塞爾維亞語和克羅地亞語所取代。這種分裂是語言民族主義在前南斯拉夫地區(qū)肆虐的結果。特別是在克羅地亞，正如蘭科·布加爾斯基在2001年提到的那樣，象征性的聲明總是伴隨著學術性的語言活動，目的是為了盡可能地將各自的語言與塞爾維亞語（也就是塞克語）相互區(qū)分開來。這種狀況使我們想起語言民族主義的影響，在這個案例中，遠遠超過其基本的交際功能。因此，語言規(guī)劃帶來的影響，不管是好是壞，都是巨大的。

如上文所提及的，現(xiàn)在有很多期刊都會定期發(fā)表與語言規(guī)劃相關的論文，其中之一是《多語言和多文化發(fā)展》，自1993年起，我一直擔任這本期刊的編輯。特別值得高興的是，現(xiàn)在越來越多的中國社會學家、政治科學家和語言學家致力于語言規(guī)劃研究。例如在過去幾年間，我們發(fā)表了裴正薇（關于英語教學）、高雪松（關于漢語方言問題）、趙娟娟（關于語言態(tài)度）和甘正東（關于中國人使用英語）等學者的學術論文。盡管上述研究都沒有直接關注語言規(guī)劃本身，但這些研究均在語言規(guī)劃的大框架內(nèi)。除此以外，我也很高興提到一本書，這本書恰好在我書桌上，該書直接切入語言規(guī)劃的主題。這本書就是李宇明教授的專著《中國語言規(guī)劃論》，由德國德古意特出版社和北京商務印書館聯(lián)合出版。這本影響深遠并具有開拓意義的著作，包含三十一個主要章節(jié)，原文用漢語出版，隨后全部輯錄英文出版?！捌鋭菀殉?，其時已至”，所有這些最新的進展都表明《語言戰(zhàn)略研究》的出版恰逢時機，也是這一重要領域不斷拓展過程中一座可喜的里程碑。

（北京外國語大學 張?zhí)靷プg）

The Importance of Language Planning

St. Francis Xavier University John Edwards

In 1966 Einar Haugen outlined the four main aspects of language planning – norm selection， norm codification， functional implementation and functional elabo?ration - and the model remains central. While selection and implementation （often called ‘status planning） are extra-linguistic and essentially social features， codification and elaboration （‘corpus planning） deal directly with language itself. The operation of language planning along these lines is theoretically quite straightforward. A linguistic issue arises， such that a choice has to be made between or among varieties. Following this， standardi?sation can provide a written form， or regularise grammar， orthography and lexicon. Implementation involves spreading the variety through official pronouncements， education and the media. Various evaluation procedures are often employed at this stage to monitor the degree of acceptance of the chosen form. Finally， elaboration means keeping the language viable in a changing world； obvious necessities here include lexical modernisation and expansion.

The single most comprehensive overview of the field is the book produced by Robert Kaplan and Richard Baldauf in 1997， and they were also the founding editors of the important journal， Current Issues in Language Planning， now in its sixteenth year of publication. A more venerable journal is Language Problems and Language Planning， established in 1977， and many other journals now publish articles having to do with language planning.

Language planning， especially selection and implementation， is a heavily value-laden exercise. Any disinterested theorising becomes compromised in practice， and language planning is often concerned with applications in highly controversial settings. These include the maintenance or revival of ‘small or endangered languages， the establishment of a lingua franca， the navigation of accep?table channels among large areas of linguistic diversity， and so on. Planning is inevitably coloured by ideological imperatives and what appears as progress to some may be persecution to others. All forms of language planning are necessarily prescriptivist to some degree， since all planning presupposes intentions and desired outcomes. Given the modern scholarly reluctance to ‘prescribe， the associated belief that language change is a constant and natural process， and the contemporary linguistic understanding that broad usage is the ultimate criterion of ‘correctness， tensions are often predictable. Thus， in their useful 1997 overview， Kaplan and Baldauf suggested that ‘language planners are caught somewhere between linguistic description and prescriptivism. On the one hand， they are now largely drawn from the scholarly ranks， and this implies a dispassionate stance； on the other， their work necessarily contains at least some elements of prescriptivism. It is clear that intervention on behalf of a ‘small language or dialect is prescriptive， and the historical record also shows that planning the emergence of a standard variety – whether that involves favouring one dialect over another， or the construction of some amalgam – is usually highly contentious. Even lexicography， however， involves some element of prescriptivism： which words are to be included or omitted， when do slang terms achieve enough breadth of use to warrant an entry， and so on.

As a heavily value-laden exercise， language planning must always exist at the intersection of scholarship and society， between what we hope are disinterested academic motives and what we know to be very specific social ones. It is often the latter that predominate. We should not be surprised， then， to see egregious examples of planning in the service of identity politics. One such involves the language traditionally known as Serbo-Croatian. Used not only by Serbs and Croats， but also by Bosnians and Montenegrins， it had been a widely accepted medium since the middle of the nineteenth century. Now， however， Serbo-Croatian no longer has an official existence， and is in the process of being replaced by Bosnian， Serbian and Croatian， a fracturing which is the consequence of linguistic nationalism in the countries that comprised the former Yugoslavia. In Croatia in particular， as Ranko Bugarski noted in 2001， symbolic declarations have been accompanied by scholarly linguistic activity aimed at differentiating the language as much as possible from Serbian （that is， Serbo-Croatian）. This sort of situation reminds us of the potency of linguistic nationalism – in this case， being allowed to trump basic communication – and， hence， of the great impact， for good or ill， that language planning can have.

I remarked， above， that many journals now regularly publish articles dealing with language planning – and one of them is the Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development， of which I have been the editor since 1993. It is a particular pleasure to note the ever-increasing number of contributions from Chinese sociologists， political scientists and linguists， many of whom concern themselves with aspects of language planning. Over the past couple of years， for example， we have published articles by Zheng?wei Pei （on teaching English）， Xuesong Gao （on issues surrounding Chinese ‘dialects）， Juanjuan Zhao （language attitudes） and Zhengdong Gan （on Chinese use of Eng?lish）. While none of these is directly focused on language planning per se， all of the themes that they have written about feed into the larger planning picture. Beyond these， I am also very glad to mention a book – just now arrived on my desk – which is directly on the topic. This is Language Planning in China， by Li Yuming， published this year by De Gruyter Mouton， in association with the Commercial Press in Beijing. The volume contains thirty-one substantial chapters， all published origi?nally in Chinese， and now brought together， in English translation， in this impressive and ground-breaking collection. All of these new deve?lopments suggest that the arrival of the Chinese Journal of Language Policy and Planning is a timely and very welcome mark of progress in an important field.

責任編輯：戴 燃