博納德·斯波斯基

中華人民共和國自建立之初，就始終積極地承擔著語言管理的重要使命，如漢字的簡化與標準化、將普通話作為國家通用語來推廣、設計并使用拼音作為一種輔助系統(tǒng)、鑒別并繪制區(qū)域性語言變體地圖、識別并描述少數民族的官方語言變體、為境內非漢族語言創(chuàng)制書寫系統(tǒng)、翻譯來自其他語言的人名和術語、語言教學法和語言傳播、雙語制、外語教學與測試等（Spolsky 2014）。

其中有些是較早做出的嘗試。如確立漢語的身份地位并將其作為一種主要且強勢的方言（topolec），這可以追溯到2000年前；漢字簡化工作在1935年中華民國時期就已經開始了；重要的術語在漢朝、唐朝和明朝就已經發(fā)展起來了。為了繼承并發(fā)揚這一傳統(tǒng)，中華人民共和國一建立就采取了大量的全國性、統(tǒng)一性措施，雖然這些措施在“文化大革命”期間被懸置了。

為了解決廣泛存在的文盲現象，1956年，中國國務院通過了《漢字簡化方案》，1964年，中國文字改革委員會編印了《簡化字總表》（經編者核查原文信息有誤，特此更正）。普通話成為國家標準語言，拼音也被發(fā)展成漢字的注音工具。一開始，有些人認為拼音是傳統(tǒng)文字的代替品，但最終它被定義為一種學習工具。2001年，語言文字法明文規(guī)定了普通話和簡化字的地位，也承認有必要但需有限制地使用方言并進行一些少數民族語言保護，因為這些也是語言學廣泛研究的對象之一。這種重心向普通話傾斜的現象仍在持續(xù)，而人口大規(guī)模城市化現象又加速了這一過程。

許多少數民族語言已經被官方正式承認，但目前尚存一些值得關注的話題，比如有大約近300種少數民族語言，其中一些如藏語和維吾爾語，難免牽扯到政治上一些尚未解決的問題。到2004年，大概只有30種少數民族語言有書寫系統(tǒng)。

自1996年起，全國科學技術名詞審定委員會便致力于發(fā)展新的術語；一項大規(guī)模的漢語傳播項目也已經展開，該項目關注遍布世界各地90個國家的孔子學院；由于操著其他方言的草根階級不愿改說普通話，雙語現象也得到認可；外語教學也已經有了一些發(fā)展，公立與私立機構的英語教學在規(guī)模上都有所擴大；基于1300多年科舉制度的歷史，漢語和英語都是高考的必考科目。每年有900多萬名高中畢業(yè)生參加這一考試，爭取有限的大學入學名額；最近，圍繞著家庭語言政策的一些研究也已經展開。

從上述這些關于中國語言管理領域的概述中，我們可以發(fā)現，該研究領域已經逐漸成熟。強大的中央政治集權控制以及意識形態(tài)和領導層的變化都會對目標不斷進行調整。也有人進行一系列嘗試，將外圍的反作用力，即方言、少數民族及區(qū)域社團的力量考慮在內?？墒窃诰唧w的實施過程中難免會遇到一些困難，這是政治因素導致的必然結果，在這樣一個大國里，可能會從尊重階層和領域之間的差異性中獲益（Spolsky 2009）。當然，考慮到中國社會語言學社團巨大的復雜性，即使強有力的中央政府也會在集中規(guī)劃方面面臨嚴峻的問題。經濟領域和其他領域的規(guī)劃過程也同樣證明，這種僅需執(zhí)行中央決策規(guī)劃的想法是沒有根據的。在不同的種族和社會團體內部，語言管理實踐多種多樣，它們內部及彼此之間也存在意識形態(tài)方面的差異，而這種差異導致了語言管理中沖突不斷。

即使沒有中國現代歷史上的重大問題，即使在“文化大革命”時期沒有出現人才斷層，即使沒有中央經濟政策帶來的重大問題，語言管理任務本身存在的巨大的復雜性和目標之間潛在的矛盾，也會使其沒那么容易獲得成功。全球化和信息科技所帶來的變化，讓這一困境雪上加霜。請教咨詢的意愿（現在廣泛采用的是專家和政治家共同與會以及聯合成立委員會的形式）以及對于試驗和改革的開放姿態(tài)在這里就顯得非常重要了。

在語言管理這個領域里，結果很難評估，并且失敗比成功更加常見。在經濟學中亦是如此。就像我們剛從一個危機中好不容易掙扎出來卻又跌進另一個危機；在國際政治中也是如此，一場戰(zhàn)爭總是接著另一場戰(zhàn)爭；生活中的大多數領域都是如此。所以，我們不能期望承擔如此復雜任務的中國語言管理界一定會完成得更好。我們可以察覺到中國取得的成功，如：切實提高了識字率、維護國家認同感、滿足一些（而非全部）少數民族的利益、在本土之外進行漢語傳播、開始建立起一支熟練掌握外語的人才隊伍等。但是以上這些任務尚未完成，不同目標間的對立會帶來一些問題（如：維護傳統(tǒng)文字的同時還要面對計算機時代的需求、承認區(qū)域性語言和語言遺產的同時鼓勵使用普通話、在海外教授中文的同時加強國內的英語教學）。政策的實施也會面臨一些困難，這些政策需要這一復雜（政治）體系中各層各級的資源和支持。中國廣闊的疆域以及語言問題的多樣性，使得語言管理研究成為一個極富有吸引力的課題。

一本新的中國語言政策雜志的創(chuàng)立將在連接中外學者方面提供更多的機會，并且?guī)椭钣蠲鹘淌冢↙i 2015）繼續(xù)推進他具有開創(chuàng)性的事業(yè)。

（北京信息科技大學 程京艷譯）

Language Management in the PRC： An Evaluation

Bar-Ilan University Bernard Spolsky

Since its creation， the PRC has been very active in tackling the major tasks of language management： simplification and standardization of Chinese script， promotion of Putonghua as a national language， design and use of Pinyin as an auxiliary script， identification and mapping of regional language varieties， recognition and description of official minority varieties， creation of scripts for non-Sinitic varieties， translation of names and terms from other languages， language pedagogy and diffusion， bilingualism， foreign language instruction and language testing （Spolsky 2014）.

Some of these were older endeavors： the establishment of the status of Mandarin， as the major and leading topolect goes back 2000 years； the simplification of writing started under the Republic in 1935； and there was important terminology development under the Han， Tang and Ming dynasties. But building on and expanding this tradition， there have been a large number of centrally-

controlled activities under the PRC， starting soon after it came to power although suspended during Cultural Revolution.

Established to solve problems of popular illiteracy， the first Commission for the Reform of the Chinese Written Language issued a list of simplified characters in 1957， which was expanded in 1965. Mandarin was selected as Putonghua， the national standard language and Pinyin developed as a method writing it phonetically. Originally conceived by some as a replacement for traditional charac?ters， Pinyin was finally defined as a learning tool. The 2001 Language Law laid down the status of Putonghua and simplified spelling， but recognized the necessary but limited use of the topolects and the maintenance of some minority languages； these too were the subject of extensive linguistic research. The shift to Putonghua continues， hastened by the large scale urbanization of the population.

Many minority languages have been formally recognized， but this remains a topic of some concern as there might be nearly 300 such varieties， some associated like Tibetan and Uighur with politically unresolved issues. By 2004， there were writing systems for thirty minority languages.

Since 1996， a National Committee for Terms in Sciences and Technologies has worked to developed new terminology. An extensive program for Chinese language diffusion has been undertaken， focused on the Confucius institutes operating in 90 countries of the world. Recognition of bilingualism has followed the grassroots reluctance of speakers of other varieties to shift to Putonghua. There have been development in foreign language teaching， and expansion in the public and private teaching of English. Building on the one thousand three hundred year history of the Chinese Imperial Examination system， Chinese and English are required subjects in the Gaokao （National College Entrance Examination） taken by over 9，000，000 high school students annually competing for limited university places. More recently， studies have begun of family language policy.

From this brief sketch of the areas of Chinese language management in the PRC， one can see that the field is well developed. There is strong centralized political control， with ideological and leadership changes leading to modification of goals. There has been a serious attempt to take into account the counterforces of the periphery – the strength of the topolects and the minority and regional communities. There have been difficulties in implementation， an inevitable result of bureaucratic complexity and centralized planning in such a huge country， that might well benefit from appreciation of the differences in levels and domains （Spolsky 2009）. Given the enormous complexity of Chinese sociolinguistic communities， even a strong central government faces serious problems in central planning. As in economic and other planning processes， the assumption that all that is involved is implementation of centrally determined plans has been shown to be invalid. There is great variety in the language practices of the various ethnic and social groups， differences of ideo?logy within and between groups， and resulting conflicts in management.

Even without the major problems of modern Chinese history and the gaps in qualified manpower produced by the horrors of the Cultural Revolution， and the major problems associated with central economic planning， the enormous complexity of the task and the potential conflicts between goals would have blocked any easy success. The changes produced by globalization and information technology have exacerbated these difficulties. What has been important has been a willingness to consult （there has been extensive use of conferences and committees of experts and politicians） and an openness to experiment and reform.

In the field of language management， it is hard to assess results， and failure is more common than success. This is true in economics， too， as we stagger from one crisis to another， in international politics， as one war succeeds another， and in most domains of life. So we cannot expect the complex tasks tackled by Chinese language management to do much better. We can note the Chinese success in increasing literacy， in maintaining a sense of national identity， in satisfying some but not all minority concerns， in spreading Mandarin outside China， and in starting to build a cadre of people with foreign language mastery. But each of these remains an unfinished task， with problems produced by tension between contradictory goals （maintaining traditional script while dealing with demands of the computer age， recognizing regional and heritage languages while encouraging use of Putong?hua， teaching Chinese overseas while strengthening the teaching of English inside China） as well as the difficulty of implementation of policies that require resources and support at all levels of a complex system. The very size of China and the multiplicity of language issues make it a fascinating case for the study of language management.

The establishment of a new Chinese Journal of Language Policy will provide more opportunities to build the connections between Chinese and international scho?lars， and helped continue the pioneering work of Li Yuming （2015）.

References

Li Yuming. 2015. Language Planning in China. Berlin： De Gruyter Mouton.

Spolsky， Bernard. 2009. Language Management. Cambridge： Cambridge University Press.

Spolsky， Bernard. 2014. Language Management in the Peoples Republic of China. Language 90（4）， 165-175.