中国的语言管理：回顾与评价

博纳德·斯波斯基

中华人民共和国自建立之初，就始终积极地承担着语言管理的重要使命，如汉字的简化与标准化、将普通话作为国家通用语来推广、设计并使用拼音作为一种辅助系统、鉴别并绘制区域性语言变体地图、识别并描述少数民族的官方语言变体、为境内非汉族语言创制书写系统、翻译来自其他语言的人名和术语、语言教学法和语言传播、双语制、外语教学与测试等（Spolsky 2014）。

其中有些是较早做出的尝试。如确立汉语的身份地位并将其作为一种主要且强势的方言（topolec），这可以追溯到2000年前；汉字简化工作在1935年中华民国时期就已经开始了；重要的术语在汉朝、唐朝和明朝就已经发展起来了。为了继承并发扬这一传统，中华人民共和国一建立就采取了大量的全国性、统一性措施，虽然这些措施在“文化大革命”期间被悬置了。

为了解决广泛存在的文盲现象，1956年，中国国务院通过了《汉字简化方案》，1964年，中国文字改革委员会编印了《简化字总表》（经编者核查原文信息有误，特此更正）。普通话成为国家标准语言，拼音也被发展成汉字的注音工具。一开始，有些人认为拼音是传统文字的代替品，但最终它被定义为一种学习工具。2001年，语言文字法明文规定了普通话和简化字的地位，也承认有必要但需有限制地使用方言并进行一些少数民族语言保护，因为这些也是语言学广泛研究的对象之一。这种重心向普通话倾斜的现象仍在持续，而人口大规模城市化现象又加速了这一过程。

许多少数民族语言已经被官方正式承认，但目前尚存一些值得关注的话题，比如有大约近300种少数民族语言，其中一些如藏语和维吾尔语，难免牵扯到政治上一些尚未解决的问题。到2004年，大概只有30种少数民族语言有书写系统。

自1996年起，全国科学技术名词审定委员会便致力于发展新的术语；一项大规模的汉语传播项目也已经展开，该项目关注遍布世界各地90个国家的孔子学院；由于操着其他方言的草根阶级不愿改说普通话，双语现象也得到认可；外语教学也已经有了一些发展，公立与私立机构的英语教学在规模上都有所扩大；基于1300多年科举制度的历史，汉语和英语都是高考的必考科目。每年有900多万名高中毕业生参加这一考试，争取有限的大学入学名额；最近，围绕着家庭语言政策的一些研究也已经展开。

从上述这些关于中国语言管理领域的概述中，我们可以发现，该研究领域已经逐渐成熟。强大的中央政治集权控制以及意识形态和领导层的变化都会对目标不断进行调整。也有人进行一系列尝试，将外围的反作用力，即方言、少数民族及区域社团的力量考虑在内。可是在具体的实施过程中难免会遇到一些困难，这是政治因素导致的必然结果，在这样一个大国里，可能会从尊重阶层和领域之间的差异性中获益（Spolsky 2009）。当然，考虑到中国社会语言学社团巨大的复杂性，即使强有力的中央政府也会在集中规划方面面临严峻的问题。经济领域和其他领域的规划过程也同样证明，这种仅需执行中央决策规划的想法是没有根据的。在不同的种族和社会团体内部，语言管理实践多种多样，它们内部及彼此之间也存在意识形态方面的差异，而这种差异导致了语言管理中冲突不断。

即使没有中国现代历史上的重大问题，即使在“文化大革命”时期没有出现人才断层，即使没有中央经济政策带来的重大问题，语言管理任务本身存在的巨大的复杂性和目标之间潜在的矛盾，也会使其没那么容易获得成功。全球化和信息科技所带来的变化，让这一困境雪上加霜。请教咨询的意愿（现在广泛采用的是专家和政治家共同与会以及联合成立委员会的形式）以及对于试验和改革的开放姿态在这里就显得非常重要了。

在语言管理这个领域里，结果很难评估，并且失败比成功更加常见。在经济学中亦是如此。就像我们刚从一个危机中好不容易挣扎出来却又跌进另一个危机；在国际政治中也是如此，一场战争总是接着另一场战争；生活中的大多数领域都是如此。所以，我们不能期望承担如此复杂任务的中国语言管理界一定会完成得更好。我们可以察觉到中国取得的成功，如：切实提高了识字率、维护国家认同感、满足一些（而非全部）少数民族的利益、在本土之外进行汉语传播、开始建立起一支熟练掌握外语的人才队伍等。但是以上这些任务尚未完成，不同目标间的对立会带来一些问题（如：维护传统文字的同时还要面对计算机时代的需求、承认区域性语言和语言遗产的同时鼓励使用普通话、在海外教授中文的同时加强国内的英语教学）。政策的实施也会面临一些困难，这些政策需要这一复杂（政治）体系中各层各级的资源和支持。中国广阔的疆域以及语言问题的多样性，使得语言管理研究成为一个极富有吸引力的课题。

一本新的中国语言政策杂志的创立将在连接中外学者方面提供更多的机会，并且帮助李宇明教授（Li 2015）继续推进他具有开创性的事业。

（北京信息科技大学 程京艳译）

Language Management in the PRC： An Evaluation

Bar-Ilan University Bernard Spolsky

Since its creation， the PRC has been very active in tackling the major tasks of language management： simplification and standardization of Chinese script， promotion of Putonghua as a national language， design and use of Pinyin as an auxiliary script， identification and mapping of regional language varieties， recognition and description of official minority varieties， creation of scripts for non-Sinitic varieties， translation of names and terms from other languages， language pedagogy and diffusion， bilingualism， foreign language instruction and language testing （Spolsky 2014）.

Some of these were older endeavors： the establishment of the status of Mandarin， as the major and leading topolect goes back 2000 years； the simplification of writing started under the Republic in 1935； and there was important terminology development under the Han， Tang and Ming dynasties. But building on and expanding this tradition， there have been a large number of centrally-

controlled activities under the PRC， starting soon after it came to power although suspended during Cultural Revolution.

Established to solve problems of popular illiteracy， the first Commission for the Reform of the Chinese Written Language issued a list of simplified characters in 1957， which was expanded in 1965. Mandarin was selected as Putonghua， the national standard language and Pinyin developed as a method writing it phonetically. Originally conceived by some as a replacement for traditional charac?ters， Pinyin was finally defined as a learning tool. The 2001 Language Law laid down the status of Putonghua and simplified spelling， but recognized the necessary but limited use of the topolects and the maintenance of some minority languages； these too were the subject of extensive linguistic research. The shift to Putonghua continues， hastened by the large scale urbanization of the population.

Many minority languages have been formally recognized， but this remains a topic of some concern as there might be nearly 300 such varieties， some associated like Tibetan and Uighur with politically unresolved issues. By 2004， there were writing systems for thirty minority languages.

Since 1996， a National Committee for Terms in Sciences and Technologies has worked to developed new terminology. An extensive program for Chinese language diffusion has been undertaken， focused on the Confucius institutes operating in 90 countries of the world. Recognition of bilingualism has followed the grassroots reluctance of speakers of other varieties to shift to Putonghua. There have been development in foreign language teaching， and expansion in the public and private teaching of English. Building on the one thousand three hundred year history of the Chinese Imperial Examination system， Chinese and English are required subjects in the Gaokao （National College Entrance Examination） taken by over 9，000，000 high school students annually competing for limited university places. More recently， studies have begun of family language policy.

From this brief sketch of the areas of Chinese language management in the PRC， one can see that the field is well developed. There is strong centralized political control， with ideological and leadership changes leading to modification of goals. There has been a serious attempt to take into account the counterforces of the periphery – the strength of the topolects and the minority and regional communities. There have been difficulties in implementation， an inevitable result of bureaucratic complexity and centralized planning in such a huge country， that might well benefit from appreciation of the differences in levels and domains （Spolsky 2009）. Given the enormous complexity of Chinese sociolinguistic communities， even a strong central government faces serious problems in central planning. As in economic and other planning processes， the assumption that all that is involved is implementation of centrally determined plans has been shown to be invalid. There is great variety in the language practices of the various ethnic and social groups， differences of ideo?logy within and between groups， and resulting conflicts in management.

Even without the major problems of modern Chinese history and the gaps in qualified manpower produced by the horrors of the Cultural Revolution， and the major problems associated with central economic planning， the enormous complexity of the task and the potential conflicts between goals would have blocked any easy success. The changes produced by globalization and information technology have exacerbated these difficulties. What has been important has been a willingness to consult （there has been extensive use of conferences and committees of experts and politicians） and an openness to experiment and reform.

In the field of language management， it is hard to assess results， and failure is more common than success. This is true in economics， too， as we stagger from one crisis to another， in international politics， as one war succeeds another， and in most domains of life. So we cannot expect the complex tasks tackled by Chinese language management to do much better. We can note the Chinese success in increasing literacy， in maintaining a sense of national identity， in satisfying some but not all minority concerns， in spreading Mandarin outside China， and in starting to build a cadre of people with foreign language mastery. But each of these remains an unfinished task， with problems produced by tension between contradictory goals （maintaining traditional script while dealing with demands of the computer age， recognizing regional and heritage languages while encouraging use of Putong?hua， teaching Chinese overseas while strengthening the teaching of English inside China） as well as the difficulty of implementation of policies that require resources and support at all levels of a complex system. The very size of China and the multiplicity of language issues make it a fascinating case for the study of language management.

The establishment of a new Chinese Journal of Language Policy will provide more opportunities to build the connections between Chinese and international scho?lars， and helped continue the pioneering work of Li Yuming （2015）.

References

Li Yuming. 2015. Language Planning in China. Berlin： De Gruyter Mouton.

Spolsky， Bernard. 2009. Language Management. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press.

Spolsky， Bernard. 2014. Language Management in the Peoples Republic of China. Language 90（4）， 165-175.