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

语言政策与规划(LPP)领域的最新研究在很大程度上超越了将政策视为纯粹自上而下过程中设计、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)--由社会各个领域的主体实例化(Spolsky，2004)。例如，在少数群体和语言复兴背景下(Ricento&Hornberger，1996；Hornberger&Johnson，2007；Johnson，2009；Harison，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；Sallabank，2005)中，教育工作者在引导和抵制政府语言教育政策方面的作用，以及在多语言家庭(O’Rourke&Nandi，2019；Gharibi&Seals，2019；Roberts，2019)和社区(Hatoss，2006；Sallabank，2005)中实施的父母政策对语言的维持或振兴做出了贡献(或不贡献)。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，并确定和审查所谓的“语言政策行为者”的角色和行动，但在LPP领域，需要对在特定背景下采取的个人给予进一步的具体关注。最近，斯波尔斯基(2019)指出，语言政策(以显性语言管理努力、语言实践或信仰和意识形态的形式存在)，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，斯波尔斯基(同上：327)认为，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“语言行为”(Ager，2005：10)来确定，既可能受到“外部倡导或管理”的影响，也可能起到抵制作用。有鉴于此，实地似乎有必要更详细地审查“已宣布的”(Shohamy，2006)、“已察觉的”(Bonacina-Pugh，2012)和“已实行的”(Repled)所针对的或受其影响的个人的政策。或“事实上”(Shohamy，2006)正在研究的语言政策。其次，虽然确实存在一些这样的研究，但通常是那些侧重于所谓的“语言政策接受”的研究(参见。例如Augustiniak&Higham，2019；Lonsmann，2017)往往采用单向度视角：只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)或一项具体政策(如单一教育语言或公司政策)及其对直接或间接受其影响的人的信仰或做法的影响。然而，斯波尔斯基(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，个人都将受到无数社会领域潜在影响政策的汇合--既有协调的，也有冲突的。因此，似乎有必要更多地关注个体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、内化和重新制定或抵制。因此，当前研究的焦点可以通过以下一般性的总体问题来描述：个人如何直接或间接地接受语言政策？或者，另一种选择是：在给定的“政策环境”中，语言政策如何影响个人的语言政策？探索这样的问题可以有助于回答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’的二分法会发生什么？

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?