西方三十年语言教育政策重要研究回眸——《语言政策与规划·教育中的语言政策》述评

林 晓

语言战略研究 ›› 2017, Vol. 2 ›› Issue (4) : 88-96.

欢迎访问《语言战略研究》官方网站!今天是
语言战略研究 ›› 2017, Vol. 2 ›› Issue (4) : 88-96.
语言战略研究

西方三十年语言教育政策重要研究回眸——《语言政策与规划·教育中的语言政策》述评

  • 林 晓
作者信息 +

Reflection on the Accomplishments in Language Education Policy Study over Three Decades: Review of Language Policy in Education in the Series of Language Policy and Planning

  • Lin Xiao
Author information +
文章历史 +

摘要

该卷对西方语言教育政策的主要研究(1984—2012)进行了较为全面的梳理与呈现,所呈现的研究现状、范围及其特征都体现出语言教育政策研究的跨学科性质,涵盖了语言学、教育学、人种学、社会学等学科。该卷的核心理念是:在正式与非正式的教育领域中,语言实践是语言教育政策研究的根基,研究对象的明晰性也是该研究领域走向成熟的重要标志。该卷试图建构以教育机构中的语言实践为导向的研究范式,主题包括母语教育、双语教育、学校语言政策制定、教师作用、语言测试、教育在语言维持与复兴中的作用、语言教育与发展、家庭语言政策等热点话题。该卷所选文献表明,学界普遍认可将语言教育政策视为多层面的现象与过程来研究,关注宏观语言政策对学校课堂和社区的影响,关注当地语言政策和实践的发展以及两者之间的交互关系等。学界推崇民族志的研究方法,即深入到各教育机构的语言实践中去,揭示各种语言实践现象的根源。这种对语言实践的深度理解也是反思性的、批判性的,体现出语言教育政策研究在理解、解释和引领语言教育实践方面的价值。但是,语言教育政策中宏观与微观层面之间关系的元理论框架尚待进一步探究。中国语言教育政策研究需要立足于中国语言教育实践的客观需要和基础定向,真正揭示并切中当今中国的语言教育现实。

Abstract

This volume presents the main achievements in the language education policy research (1984-2012) in the West and the scope and characteristics of the works included in it have reflected its interdisciplinary nature, encompassing various traditions in linguistics, education, anthropology, sociology, etc. The articles and chapters in this volume provide a wide range of perspectives on how the language practices in formal and informal educational contexts are infl uenced by various factors and how this research paradigm reconstructs the field of language-in-education policy. The topics covered include: mother tongue education, bilingual education, school language policy, teachers’ role, language testing, education’s role in language maintenance and revitalization, relationship between language education and development, family language policy, etc. The discussions in this volume show that the academics generally recognize the language-in-education policy as a multifaceted phenomenon and process, focusing on the macro language policy’s impact on classrooms and communities, the development of local language policy at the institutional establishments, community and family contexts and the interaction between these two dimensions. Researchers usually adopt the ethnographic approaches to examine the language practices and reach a deep understanding, which is also refl ective and critical, with an aim to obtain a better understanding of the significance of language education policy research in explaining and guiding language education practices. However, it is found the researchers have yet to explore the basis for a broader meta-theoretical framework to understand the interrelationship between macro and micro policy and practice within language-in-education policy. The implication for language education policy researchers in China is to focus their research on the language practices in educational institutes in China and base their theoretical thinking on solid empirical facts, thus provide localized resolution for the further development of language-in-education policy researches.

关键词

语言教育政策 / 语言实践 / 教育机构 / 中国

Key words

language-in-education policy / language practice / educational institute / China

引用本文

导出引用
林 晓. 西方三十年语言教育政策重要研究回眸——《语言政策与规划·教育中的语言政策》述评[J]. 语言战略研究. 2017, 2(4): 88-96
Lin Xiao. Reflection on the Accomplishments in Language Education Policy Study over Three Decades: Review of Language Policy in Education in the Series of Language Policy and Planning[J]. Chinese Journal of Language Policy and Planning. 2017, 2(4): 88-96

参考文献

李娅玲 2012 《中国外语教育政策发展研究》,北京:北京大学出版社。
林 晓 2016 《英语作为教学媒介语隐性政策分析——以马来西亚、新加坡和泰国为例》,《语言战略研 究》第2 期。
沈 骑 石茜英 2013 《语言教育政策的国际视野和本土实践——“2013 语言教育政策国际学术研讨会”述评》,《当代外语研究》第9期。
王克非等 2012 《国外外语教育研究》,北京:外语教学与研究出版社。
Corson, David. 1999. Language Policy in School: A Resource for Teachers and Administrators. London: Routledge.
Cross, Russell. 2009. A Sociocultural Framework for Language Policy and Planning. Language Problems & Language Planning, 33 (1): 22-42.
Cooper, Robert.1989. Language Planning and Social Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dang, Thi Kim Anh, Hoa Thi Mai Nguyen, and TrucThi Thanh Le. 2013. The Impacts of Globalization on EFL Teacher Education through English as a Medium of Instruction: An Example from Vietnam. Current Issues in Language Planning, 14 (1), 52-72.
Fasold, Ralph. 1984. The Sociolinguistics of Society. Oxford; New York: Basil Blackwell.
Fasold, Ralph. 1990. The Sociolinguistics of Language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Ferguson,Gibson. 2006. Language Planning and Education. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
Fishman, Joshua A. 1991. Reversing Language Shift: Theory and Practice of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Hamid, M. Obaidul, Jahan, Iffat, and Islam, Monjurul. 2013.Medium of Instruction Policies and Language Practices, Ideologies and Institutional Divides: Voices of Teachers and Students in a Private University in Bangladesh. Current Issues in Language Planning, 14 (1), 144–163.
Held, David, Anthony McLew, David Goldblatt, and Jonathan- Perraton. 1999. Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Heller, Monica (ed.). 2007. Bilingualism: A Social Approach. Basingstoke, UK; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hornberger, Nancy. 1989. Can Peru’s Rural Schools Be Agents for Quechua Language Maintenance? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 10 (2), 145-159.
Hornberger, Nancy and David Cassels Johnson. 2007. Slicing the Onion Ethnographically: Layers and Spaces in Multilingual Language Education Policy and Practice. TESOL Quarterly, 41(3): 509-532.
Huebner, Thom and Kathryn A. Davis (eds.). 1999. Sociopolitical Perspectives on Language Policy and Planning in the USA. Amsterdam; Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Johnson, David Cassels. 2013. Language Policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kaplan, Robert and Richard Baldauf B. 1997. Language Planning from Practice to Theory. Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Kaplan, Robert and Richard Baldauf B. 2003. Language and Language-in-Education Planning in the Pacific Basin. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.
Menken, Kate. 2006. Teaching to the Test: How No Child Left Behind Impacts Language Policy, Curriculum, and Instruction for English Language Learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 30 (2), 521-546.
Menken, Kate and García, Ofelia. 2010. Negotiating Language Policies in Schools: Educators as Policymakers. Florence, KY: Routledge.
McCarty, Teresa. 1998. Schooling, Resistance, and American Indian Languages. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 132 (1): 27-42.
Ricento, Thomas. 2000. Historical and Theoretical Perspectives in Language Policy and Planning. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 4 (2): 196-213.
Ricento, Thomas (ed). 2016a. Language Policy and Planning: Critical Concepts in Linguistics (Vol. 1). London and New York: Routledge.
Ricento, Thomas (ed). 2016b. Language Policy and Planning: Critical Concepts in Linguistics (Vol. 3). London and New York: Routledge.
Romaine, Suzanne. 2006. Planning for the Survival of Linguistic Diversity. Language Policy, 5 (4): 441-473.
Shohamy, Elana. 2006. Language Policy: Hidden Agendas and New Approaches. London: Routledge.
Tollefson, James (ed.). 2002. Language Policies in Education: Critical Issues. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tollefson, James. 2013. Language Policy in a Time of Crisis and Transformation, in Tollefson, James. (ed.) Language Policies in Education: Critical Issues (2nd edition). New York and London: Routledge, 11-34.

基金

本文为教育部人文社会科学研究“社会文化理论视域下的语言政策研究”基金项目(13YJA740031)的研究成果之一。

Accesses

Citation

Detail

段落导航
相关文章

/