Introduction. Bilingual education and indigenous languages in the light of language planning
Introduction. Bilingual education and indigenous languages in the light of language planning
复制标题
介绍。
DOI：
10.1515/ijsl.1989.77.5
复制
发表时间：
1989
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
N. Hornberger
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
N. Hornberger
这一卷中的文件都在语言规划的范围内审议了拉丁美洲的土著人口及其教育问题。语言规划被定义为“权威地将资源分配给语言”(菲什曼，1980)，或追求“通过对解决语言问题的替代目标、手段和结果的决定来解决这些问题”(Rubin 1972：477)。由于教育涉及资源分配，而且土著居民所说的语言经常被视为国家教育系统中的S问题，因此，针对土著居民的教育政策和方案属于语言规划的范畴也就不足为奇了。然而，这一事实并不总是被承认。也许这是因为语言规划理论并不广为人知。虽然语言规划当然已经进行了几个世纪，但它直到20世纪60年代才成为深入研究的主题。语言规划这一术语可能最早是由豪根(1959)(Karam 1974：104)在文献中使用的。从那时起，对语言规划的跨国研究导致了一些学者，如S·弗格森、菲什曼、鲁宾、达斯·古普塔、克劳斯、纳希尔和鲁兹，他们致力于从语言规划的类型、过程、目标和方向等方面对语言规划进行统一的描述。虽然有些人反对语言规划的理论发展除了基于归纳法的类型学构建(Williams 1986：509)，但在我看来，在形成这样的语言规划理论方面取得了一些进展。在接下来的几段话中，我初步勾勒出了S的这一理论，以下是摘自菲什曼早期一篇关于另一个主题的论文的警告。
The papers in this volume have in common the consideration of indigenous populations and their education in Latin America within the context of language planning. Language planning has been defined äs 'the authoritative allocation of resources to language' (Fishman 1980), or the pursuit of 'solutions to language problems through decisions about alternative goals, means, and outcomes to solve these problems' (Rubin 1972: 477). Since education involves the allocation of resources, and the languages that indigenous populations speak are frequently perceived äs problems within the national educational System, it should not be surprising to suggest that educational policies and programs addressed to indigenous populations fall within the realm of language planning. Nevertheless, this fact is not always recognized. Perhaps this is because language-planning theory is not well known. Though language planning has of course been going on for centuries, it has been the subject of intensive study only since the 1960s. The term language planning was perhaps first used in the literature by Haugen (1959) (Karam 1974: 104). Since then, cross-national studies of language planning have led scholars such äs Ferguson, Fishman, Rubin, Das Gupta, Kloss, Nahir, and Ruiz to work toward a unified description of language planning in terms of types, processes, goals, and orientations. While some have objected that there is very little theoretical development of language planning beyond 'typological construction based upon induction' (Williams 1986: 509), it seems to me that some progress has been made in formulating such a language-planning theory. In the few paragraphs which follow offer a tentative outline of that theory äs it is known to me, with the following caveat, taken from an early Fishman paper on another subject.