权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

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

政策和个人：调查加泰罗尼亚法语区/法国加泰罗尼亚语区收到的语言政策

基本信息

批准号：
1904630
负责人：
金额：
--
依托单位：
University of Edinburgh
依托单位国家：
英国
项目类别：
Studentship
财政年份：
2017
资助国家：
英国
起止时间：
2017 至无数据
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-1904630
关键词：
Policies individuals Investigating received language

项目摘要

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?

语言政策和规划（LPP）领域的最新研究在很大程度上已经不再将政策视为主要是在纯粹自上而下的过程中设计、创建和实施的政府立法，而是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来观察（Spolsky，2004，2009；Barakos＆Unger，2016；Bonacina-Pugh，2012）——由代理实例化遍及社会的各个领域（Spolsky，2004）。例如，重点关注教育工作者在少数民族和语言振兴背景下采用和抵制政府教育语言政策的作用（Ricento & Hornberger, 1996; Hornberger & Johnson, 2007; Johnson, 2009; Harrison, 2019; Brown, 2010; Young, 2014; Huang, 2016），以及家长政策在多语言家庭中实例化（O'Rourke & Nandi，2019；Gharibi & Seals，2019；Roberts，2019）和社区（Hatoss，2006；Sallabank，2005）为语言维护或振兴做出贡献（或不做出贡献）。然而，两个关键问题似乎仍然存在。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，并识别和审查所谓“语言政策参与者”的角色和行动，但 LPP 领域需要进一步具体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（以明确的语言管理工作、语言实践或信仰和意识形态的形式[参见 Spolsky， 2004]）虽然继续存在于国家、家庭和学校等传统社会领域，但也可以在个人层面上找到。此外，这些政策可以通过个人对语言的信念及其“语言行为”或“针对语言的行为”（Ager，2005：10）来识别，Spolsky（同上：327）断言，这些政策可能既受到“外部倡导或管理”的影响，也可能起到抵制“外部倡导或管理”的作用。有鉴于此，该领域似乎有必要更详细地审查以正在研究的“宣布的”（Shohamy，2006）、“感知的”（Bonacina-Pugh，2012）和“实践的”（同上）或“事实上的”（Shohamy，2006）语言政策为目标或受其影响的个人所接受的政策。其次，虽然确实存在一些此类研究，但通常那些关注所谓“语言政策接受”的研究（参见 Augustyniak & Higham，2019；Lonsmann，2017）倾向于采用单一维度的视角：仅研究一个社会领域的政策（最常见的是学校、工作场所或家庭）或一项特定政策（例如教育中的单一语言或公司政策）和他们对其直接或间接针对的人的信仰或做法的影响。然而，斯波尔斯基（Spolsky，2004）基于领域的语言政策理论似乎表明，在任何给定时间，个人都会受到跨越无数社会领域的潜在影响力政策的影响——既有一致的，也有冲突的。因此，似乎有必要更多地关注个人对其政策环境的导航（Ager，1999），以及他们对构成政策环境的各种语言政策的解释、内化和重演或抵制。因此，当前研究的焦点可以通过以下一般性、总体性问题来表征：个人如何直接或间接地接受语言政策？或者：给定“政策环境”内的语言政策如何塑造个人的语言政策？探索这些问题可以说有助于回答 Darquennes 和 Soler（2019：469）提出的类似问题“传统的‘自上而下’与当重点放在演讲者及其潜力时，“自下而上”的二分法？