約翰·愛(ài)德華茲

1966年埃納·豪根概述了語(yǔ)言規(guī)劃的四個(gè)主要方面：規(guī)范的選擇、規(guī)范的編典、功能的實(shí)施和功能的完善，這一理論模式一直是語(yǔ)言規(guī)劃學(xué)科的核心內(nèi)容。規(guī)范的選擇和功能的實(shí)施（通常被稱為“地位規(guī)劃”）主要探討語(yǔ)言之外的事情，具備更多的社會(huì)屬性，而語(yǔ)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(yǔ)言本身。通過(guò)這些線索，語(yǔ)言規(guī)劃的操作在理論上是非常明確的。例如，當(dāng)出現(xiàn)一個(gè)有關(guān)語(yǔ)言變體選擇的問(wèn)題時(shí)，我們就可據(jù)此來(lái)操作，首先是語(yǔ)言的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化，提供書寫形式、規(guī)范的語(yǔ)法、正字法和詞匯；其次是語(yǔ)言規(guī)劃的實(shí)施，即通過(guò)官方文件、教育和媒體等渠道來(lái)傳播該語(yǔ)言變體；再次是語(yǔ)言規(guī)劃的評(píng)價(jià)，在這個(gè)階段，通常是利用各種評(píng)價(jià)程序來(lái)監(jiān)控所選語(yǔ)言變體的接受度；最后是語(yǔ)言的完善，即保持語(yǔ)言與時(shí)俱進(jìn)的活力，其中最顯著的內(nèi)容是詞匯的現(xiàn)代化及擴(kuò)充。

至今，對(duì)語(yǔ)言規(guī)劃領(lǐng)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(yǔ)言規(guī)劃：從實(shí)踐到理論》，他們也是創(chuàng)辦《語(yǔ)言規(guī)劃的現(xiàn)實(shí)問(wèn)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(yǔ)言問(wèn)題與語(yǔ)言規(guī)劃》，現(xiàn)在還有很多其他刊物也發(fā)表與語(yǔ)言規(guī)劃相關(guān)的論文。

語(yǔ)言規(guī)劃，特別是語(yǔ)言的選擇和功能的實(shí)施，是一個(gè)負(fù)載著重要價(jià)值的行為。任何公正的理論在實(shí)踐中都要做出一定的妥協(xié)，語(yǔ)言規(guī)劃通常在充滿各種爭(zhēng)議的場(chǎng)景中應(yīng)用，這些場(chǎng)景包括“小”的或?yàn)l危語(yǔ)言的保存和復(fù)活、通用語(yǔ)的建立、大型多語(yǔ)區(qū)域中便利溝通渠道的開(kāi)通等。語(yǔ)言規(guī)劃會(huì)不可避免地受意識(shí)形態(tài)的驅(qū)動(dòng)，因此，有些語(yǔ)言規(guī)劃被賦予意識(shí)形態(tài)的色彩，對(duì)某些群體來(lái)說(shuō)是進(jìn)步的規(guī)劃，對(duì)其他群體來(lái)說(shuō)，可能就是一種迫害。所有形式的語(yǔ)言規(guī)劃在某種程度上來(lái)說(shuō)都是規(guī)范性的，因?yàn)樗械囊?guī)劃都預(yù)設(shè)著某些意圖和預(yù)期結(jié)果。現(xiàn)代的學(xué)術(shù)研究反對(duì)“規(guī)范性”，與之相關(guān)的理念認(rèn)為語(yǔ)言變化是個(gè)持續(xù)的、自然的過(guò)程，而且從當(dāng)代語(yǔ)言學(xué)的角度來(lái)理解，語(yǔ)言的廣泛使用是檢驗(yàn)“正確性”的最終標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，因此，語(yǔ)言規(guī)劃中存在各種緊張關(guān)系的現(xiàn)象就可想而知了。于是，1997年卡普蘭和巴爾道夫認(rèn)為“語(yǔ)言規(guī)劃者”有時(shí)處于語(yǔ)言描寫和規(guī)范之間。一方面，現(xiàn)在語(yǔ)言規(guī)劃者大多數(shù)是學(xué)者出身，這就意味著他們將秉持公正的立場(chǎng)；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(yǔ)言或方言所進(jìn)行的干預(yù)具有規(guī)定性的特點(diǎn)，同時(shí)，歷史記錄也表明，在規(guī)劃和選擇某種標(biāo)準(zhǔn)語(yǔ)時(shí)，不管是選擇一種方言，還是選擇幾種方言的組合體，通常會(huì)引起較大的爭(zhēng)議。甚至詞典編纂，也涉及一些規(guī)范性因素，如詞語(yǔ)的收錄或排除，一些俚語(yǔ)的使用要達(dá)到什么程度才能被列為詞目等。

作為一個(gè)負(fù)載著重要價(jià)值的行為，語(yǔ)言規(guī)劃必須處在學(xué)術(shù)和社會(huì)的交叉點(diǎn)上，存在于我們所希望的公正的學(xué)術(shù)動(dòng)機(jī)和我們所知道的某一具體的社會(huì)動(dòng)機(jī)之間，通常后者居主導(dǎo)地位。語(yǔ)言規(guī)劃中有很多令人震驚的例子是為政治認(rèn)同服務(wù)的，這不足為奇，其中一個(gè)例子涉及一種在傳統(tǒng)上被稱為塞爾維亞—克羅地亞語(yǔ)的語(yǔ)言（簡(jiǎn)稱塞克語(yǔ)）。自十九世紀(jì)中葉以來(lái)，塞克語(yǔ)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(yǔ)不再被作為一種官方語(yǔ)言而存在，并逐漸被波斯尼亞語(yǔ)、塞爾維亞語(yǔ)和克羅地亞語(yǔ)所取代。這種分裂是語(yǔ)言民族主義在前南斯拉夫地區(qū)肆虐的結(jié)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(xué)術(shù)性的語(yǔ)言活動(dòng)，目的是為了盡可能地將各自的語(yǔ)言與塞爾維亞語(yǔ)（也就是塞克語(yǔ)）相互區(qū)分開(kāi)來(lái)。這種狀況使我們想起語(yǔ)言民族主義的影響，在這個(gè)案例中，遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超過(guò)其基本的交際功能。因此，語(yǔ)言規(guī)劃帶來(lái)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(huì)定期發(fā)表與語(yǔ)言規(guī)劃相關(guān)的論文，其中之一是《多語(yǔ)言和多文化發(fā)展》，自1993年起，我一直擔(dān)任這本期刊的編輯。特別值得高興的是，現(xiàn)在越來(lái)越多的中國(guó)社會(huì)學(xué)家、政治科學(xué)家和語(yǔ)言學(xué)家致力于語(yǔ)言規(guī)劃研究。例如在過(guò)去幾年間，我們發(fā)表了裴正薇（關(guān)于英語(yǔ)教學(xué)）、高雪松（關(guān)于漢語(yǔ)方言問(wèn)題）、趙娟娟（關(guān)于語(yǔ)言態(tài)度）和甘正東（關(guān)于中國(guó)人使用英語(yǔ)）等學(xué)者的學(xué)術(shù)論文。盡管上述研究都沒(méi)有直接關(guān)注語(yǔ)言規(guī)劃本身，但這些研究均在語(yǔ)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(yǔ)言規(guī)劃的主題。這本書就是李宇明教授的專著《中國(guó)語(yǔ)言規(guī)劃論》，由德國(guó)德古意特出版社和北京商務(wù)印書館聯(lián)合出版。這本影響深遠(yuǎn)并具有開(kāi)拓意義的著作，包含三十一個(gè)主要章節(jié)，原文用漢語(yǔ)出版，隨后全部輯錄英文出版。“其勢(shì)已成，其時(shí)已至”，所有這些最新的進(jìn)展都表明《語(yǔ)言戰(zhàn)略研究》的出版恰逢時(shí)機(jī)，也是這一重要領(lǐng)域不斷拓展過(guò)程中一座可喜的里程碑。

（北京外國(guó)語(yǔ)大學(xué) 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(zé)任編輯：戴 燃