语言规划的重要性

约翰·爱德华兹

1966年埃纳·豪根概述了语言规划的四个主要方面：规范的选择、规范的编典、功能的实施和功能的完善，这一理论模式一直是语言规划学科的核心内容。规范的选择和功能的实施（通常被称为“地位规划”）主要探讨语言之外的事情，具备更多的社会属性，而语言的编典和功能的完善（通常被称为“本体规划”）往往直接研究语言本身。通过这些线索，语言规划的操作在理论上是非常明确的。例如，当出现一个有关语言变体选择的问题时，我们就可据此来操作，首先是语言的标准化，提供书写形式、规范的语法、正字法和词汇；其次是语言规划的实施，即通过官方文件、教育和媒体等渠道来传播该语言变体；再次是语言规划的评价，在这个阶段，通常是利用各种评价程序来监控所选语言变体的接受度；最后是语言的完善，即保持语言与时俱进的活力，其中最显著的内容是词汇的现代化及扩充。

至今，对语言规划领域最全面的概述是罗伯特·卡普兰和理查德·巴尔道夫1997年合作的专著《语言规划：从实践到理论》，他们也是创办《语言规划的现实问题》这一重要期刊的编辑，该刊已经出版发行16年了。更受人尊敬的期刊是1977年创刊的《语言问题与语言规划》，现在还有很多其他刊物也发表与语言规划相关的论文。

语言规划，特别是语言的选择和功能的实施，是一个负载着重要价值的行为。任何公正的理论在实践中都要做出一定的妥协，语言规划通常在充满各种争议的场景中应用，这些场景包括“小”的或濒危语言的保存和复活、通用语的建立、大型多语区域中便利沟通渠道的开通等。语言规划会不可避免地受意识形态的驱动，因此，有些语言规划被赋予意识形态的色彩，对某些群体来说是进步的规划，对其他群体来说，可能就是一种迫害。所有形式的语言规划在某种程度上来说都是规范性的，因为所有的规划都预设着某些意图和预期结果。现代的学术研究反对“规范性”，与之相关的理念认为语言变化是个持续的、自然的过程，而且从当代语言学的角度来理解，语言的广泛使用是检验“正确性”的最终标准，因此，语言规划中存在各种紧张关系的现象就可想而知了。于是，1997年卡普兰和巴尔道夫认为“语言规划者”有时处于语言描写和规范之间。一方面，现在语言规划者大多数是学者出身，这就意味着他们将秉持公正的立场；另一方面，他们的工作至少需要包含一些规范性因素。很显然，代表“小”语言或方言所进行的干预具有规定性的特点，同时，历史记录也表明，在规划和选择某种标准语时，不管是选择一种方言，还是选择几种方言的组合体，通常会引起较大的争议。甚至词典编纂，也涉及一些规范性因素，如词语的收录或排除，一些俚语的使用要达到什么程度才能被列为词目等。

作为一个负载着重要价值的行为，语言规划必须处在学术和社会的交叉点上，存在于我们所希望的公正的学术动机和我们所知道的某一具体的社会动机之间，通常后者居主导地位。语言规划中有很多令人震惊的例子是为政治认同服务的，这不足为奇，其中一个例子涉及一种在传统上被称为塞尔维亚—克罗地亚语的语言（简称塞克语）。自十九世纪中叶以来，塞克语被视为一种被广泛接受的交际媒介，它不仅被塞尔维亚人和克罗地亚人使用，也被波斯尼亚人和黑山人使用。然而，现在塞克语不再被作为一种官方语言而存在，并逐渐被波斯尼亚语、塞尔维亚语和克罗地亚语所取代。这种分裂是语言民族主义在前南斯拉夫地区肆虐的结果。特别是在克罗地亚，正如兰科·布加尔斯基在2001年提到的那样，象征性的声明总是伴随着学术性的语言活动，目的是为了尽可能地将各自的语言与塞尔维亚语（也就是塞克语）相互区分开来。这种状况使我们想起语言民族主义的影响，在这个案例中，远远超过其基本的交际功能。因此，语言规划带来的影响，不管是好是坏，都是巨大的。

如上文所提及的，现在有很多期刊都会定期发表与语言规划相关的论文，其中之一是《多语言和多文化发展》，自1993年起，我一直担任这本期刊的编辑。特别值得高兴的是，现在越来越多的中国社会学家、政治科学家和语言学家致力于语言规划研究。例如在过去几年间，我们发表了裴正薇（关于英语教学）、高雪松（关于汉语方言问题）、赵娟娟（关于语言态度）和甘正东（关于中国人使用英语）等学者的学术论文。尽管上述研究都没有直接关注语言规划本身，但这些研究均在语言规划的大框架内。除此以外，我也很高兴提到一本书，这本书恰好在我书桌上，该书直接切入语言规划的主题。这本书就是李宇明教授的专著《中国语言规划论》，由德国德古意特出版社和北京商务印书馆联合出版。这本影响深远并具有开拓意义的著作，包含三十一个主要章节，原文用汉语出版，随后全部辑录英文出版。“其势已成，其时已至”，所有这些最新的进展都表明《语言战略研究》的出版恰逢时机，也是这一重要领域不断拓展过程中一座可喜的里程碑。

（北京外国语大学 张天伟译）

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.

责任编辑：戴 燃