Policies and individuals: Investigating received language policies in French-speaking Catalunya/Catalan-speaking France

最近在语言政策和规划（LPP）领域的研究已经在很大程度上超越了将政策主要视为纯粹自上而下过程中设计、创建和实施的政府立法的观点，转而探索各种形式的政策——无论是作为明确的行动或规则，还是通过话语和实践观察到的政策(Spolsky, 2004,2009; Barakos & Unger, 2016；Bonacina-Pugh, 2012)——由社会各个领域的代理人实例化（Spolsky, 2004）。例如，在少数民族和语言复兴背景下，教育工作者在利用和抵制政府的教育语言政策方面的作用（Ricento & Hornberger, 1996; Hornberger & Johnson, 2007; Johnson, 2009; Harrison, 2019; Brown, 2010; Young, 2014; Huang, 2016），以及在多语言家庭（O'Rourke & Nandi, 2019; Gharibi & Seals, 2019; Roberts, 2019）和社区(Hatoss, 2006；salabank, 2005)对语言的维护或复兴做出贡献（或不做出贡献）。然而，两个关键问题似乎依然存在。虽然许多文献侧重于分析宏观、中观和微观层面的语言政策，并确定和检查所谓的“语言政策参与者”的角色和行动，但在LPP领域，需要进一步特别关注在特定背景下采取行动的个人。最近，Spolsky（2019）指出，语言政策（以明确的语言管理努力、语言实践或信仰和意识形态的形式[见Spolsky， 2004]）虽然继续存在于国家、家庭和学校等传统社会领域中，但也可以在个人层面找到。此外，Spolsky（同上：327）断言，这些政策可以通过个人对语言的信念和他们的“语言行为”或“对语言的行为”（Ager, 2005: 10）来识别，可能受到“外部倡导或管理”的影响，也可能起到抵制作用。鉴于此，该领域似乎有必要更详细地研究被“宣布的”（Shohamy, 2006）、“感知的”（Bonacina-Pugh, 2012）和“实践的”（同上）或“事实上的”（Shohamy, 2006）语言政策所针对或受其影响的个人所接受的政策。其次，虽然确实存在一些这样的研究，但往往是那些专注于所谓的“语言政策接受”的研究(参见Augustyniak & Higham, 2019；Lonsmann, 2017)倾向于采用单向度视角：只研究一个社会领域（通常是学校，工作场所或家庭）或特定政策（例如教育中的单一语言或公司政策）的政策及其对直接或间接针对的人的信仰或实践的影响。然而，Spolsky（2004）的基于领域的语言政策理论似乎表明，在任何给定的时间，个人都会受到潜在的有影响力的政策的影响——既有一致的，也有相互冲突的——跨越无数的社会领域。因此，更多的注意力似乎应该放在个人对政策环境的导航上（Ager, 1999），以及他们对构成政策环境的各种语言政策的解释、内化和重新制定或抵制上。因此，当前研究的重点可以通过以下一般性的、首要的问题来描述：个人如何直接或间接地对语言政策采取行动？或者：在给定的“政策环境”中，语言政策如何影响个人的语言政策？探索这些问题可能有助于回答Darquennes和Soler（2019: 469）提出的类似问题：“当重点放在说话者及其潜力上时，传统的‘自上而下’和‘自下而上’二分法会发生什么变化？”

Recent research in the field of language policy and planning (LPP) has largely moved beyond viewing policy as primarily governmental legislation which is designed, created and implemented in a purely top-down process, to exploring the policies in various forms - whether as explicit actions or rules, or as observable through discourses and practices (Spolsky, 2004, 2009; Barakos & Unger, 2016; Bonacina-Pugh, 2012) - instantiated by agents throughout the various domains of society (Spolsky, 2004). Focus has been placed, for example, on the role of educators in appropriating and resisting governmental language-in-education policies within minority and language revitalisation contexts (Ricento & Hornberger, 1996; Hornberger & Johnson, 2007; Johnson, 2009; Harrison, 2019; Brown, 2010; Young, 2014; Huang, 2016), as well as the parental policies instantiated within multilingual families (O'Rourke & Nandi, 2019; Gharibi & Seals, 2019; Roberts, 2019) and communities (Hatoss, 2006; Sallabank, 2005) to contribute (or not) to language maintenance or revitalisation. Yet, two key problems would appear to remain. While much literature has focussed on analysing macro, meso and micro level language policies, and identifying and examining the roles and actions of so-called "language policy actors", further specific attention within the LPP field is required on individuals acted upon within a particular context.Most recently, Spolsky (2019) stated that language policies (in the form of explicit language management efforts, language practices or beliefs and ideologies [see Spolsky, 2004]), while continuing to exist within traditional societal domains such as at the state, home and school, could also be found at the level of the individual. Furthermore, these policies, which can be identified through an individual's beliefs about language and their "language behaviour" or "behaviour towards language" (Ager, 2005: 10), Spolsky (ibid.: 327) asserts, may be both influenced by, and may serve to resist, "external advocacy or management". In light of this, it seems to behove the field to examine in greater detail the received policies of individuals targeted by - or subjected to the influence of - the "declared" (Shohamy, 2006), "perceived" (Bonacina-Pugh, 2012) and "practiced" (ibid.) or "de facto" (Shohamy, 2006) language policies under study. Secondly, while some such studies do exist, frequently those that have focussed on so-called "language policy reception" (cf. e.g. Augustyniak & Higham, 2019; Lonsmann, 2017) have tended to adopt a unidimensional perspective: examining the policies of only one societal domain (most often the school, the workplace or the family) or a specific policy (such as a single language-in-education or corporate policy) and their influence on the beliefs or practices of those who are directly or indirectly targeted by them. Yet, Spolsky's (2004) domain-based theory of language policy would seem to suggest that, at any given time, individuals will be subjected to a confluence of potentially influential policies - both consonant and conflicting - across myriad societal domains. Greater attention, therefore, seems warranted on the individual's navigation of their policy environment (Ager, 1999), and their interpretation, internalisation and re-enactment of, or resistance to, the various language policies which constitute it. The focus of the current research, therefore, can be characterised through the following general, overarching questions:How are language policies received by individuals directly or indirectly acted upon by them?Or alternatively:How do the language policies within a given "policy environment" serve to shape those of individuals?Exploring such questions would arguably contribute to answering a similar question posed by Darquennes and Soler (2019: 469) "what happens to the traditional 'top-down' versus 'bottom-up' dichotomy when the emphasis is placed on the speaker and his or her potential?