Terminology and language policy (towards establishing rudiments of linguopolitology)

6S. G iniewicz | Te minologyandlanguagepolicy( owa dses ablishing... Te minology and language policy ( owa ds es ablishing udimen s o linguopoli ology) SERGIUSZ GRINIEWICZ Uni e si yo Białys ok moscowHumani iesPedagogicalIns i u e One o he mos in e es ing and opical di ec ions o mode n lin- guis ic esea ch is conce ned wi h p oblems o language policy and language planning ha oge he o m he basis o an eme ging new science. The e is al eady qui e a subs an ial amoun o publica ions on he subjec , bu ha dly any publica ion ouches upon e minological aspec s o language policy, aside om men ioning ha in he a ea o espec i e e minology he e a e many ambigui ies, complica ed by he ac ha he ield, o some ex en , has a di e en e minological s uc u e in di e en languages (cillia and Busch 2005). In his a icle we a e going o add ess he ollowing asks: 1) o es ablish he basic concep ual sys em and scheme o his ield o knowledge and sugges he espec i e e minological sys- em; 2) o b ie ly in oduce and discuss i s elemen s; and 3) o conside e minological aspec s o language policy. We in end o indica e a leas se e al e minological aspec s indispensable o he comple e awa eness when unde aking poli ical decisions conce ning language and o demon- s a e ha hough conscious sys emic e minological ac i i ies a e c ucial in success ul p omo ing o language de elopmen , a p esen he e is no e idence o sys emic app oach in language planning. Explo a ion o poli ical aspec s o language and language policy has a conside able his o y. As main ain de cillia and Busch (cillia and Busch 2005), he beginning o scien i ic e lec ion on language policies and poli ics (LPP) as an independen ield was unde aken pa icula ly in he 1960s (Ricen o 2000: 10, Lab ie 1996: 828), in publica ions such as hau- gen (1966), Kloss (1966) o Fishman (1968), and in hese he ocus was ini ially on he aspec o language planning. Ricen o (2000) dis inguishes a o al o h ee s ages in he e olu ion o language policy and planning as an a ea o esea ch: wha is cha ac e is ic o ea ly wo k is he in e es Te minologija | 2010 | 17 7 in decoloniza ion and s a e o ma ion, he p edominance o s uc u alism in social sciences and o p agma ism as a s a egic o ien a ion. The second phase ocused – unde he in luence o c i ical sociolinguis ics – on social, economic, and poli ical e ec s o language con ac . In he 1990s, linguis- ic human igh s became a s a egic aim; pos mode n and c i ical heo ies o eg ound language ideologies. On he con empo a y si ua ion he com- men s: ‘‘whe he he ecology o languages pa adigm eme ges as he mos impo an concep ual amewo k o LPP esea ch emains o be seen’’ (Ricen o 2000: 22). howe e , in he Eas Eu ope, pa icula ly in he o me uSSR, al eady beginning wi h he 1920s in connec ion wi h he la ge- scale elabo a ion o na ional languages he e was a numbe o publica ions on he subjec o language policy. Language planning ac i i ies we e based on belie ha in he planned economy socialis socie y language may be success ully con olled. La e on hose heo e ical s udies became pa o sociolinguis ics hough nowadays his ield o s udy has ou g own he amewo k o sociolinguis ics. I should be men ioned ha a he p esen ime he e is no consensus e en on he name o he new science. Acco ding o Spolsky and Lambe jus as wi h many new ields, he e con inues o be disag eemen o e he name o his one, a iously called languagepolicy (Nesiah 1954; Sibayan 1974), language ea men (Neus upny´ 1970), language cul i a ion (P ague School 1973), languageenginee ing (Sibayan 1974), languageplanning (hau- gen 1959), and languagemanagemen (Je nudd 2001, Spolsky and Lambe 2005). F om he poin o iew o e minology science his is a no mal si ua ion – a he ini ial s age he e usually a e a ious names o a new science, e lec ing di e en app oaches and possible aspec s o be aken in o conside a ion. Ne e heless i is al eady possible o es ablish he gene al s uc u e o a new science, i s main di isions and di ec ion o esea ch on he basis o p oposed de ini ions and he ma e ial unde in- es iga ion. As o naming heo e ical ounda ions o he language policy we would like o sugges he e m linguopoli ology aking in o consid- e a ion he exis ence o poly ology as he es ablished science and on he analogy wi h he al eady exis ing science linguocul u ology. The e is much in common in app oaches o unde s anding language policy in he Wes and in he Eas Eu ope. Whe he language policy is de ined as he commonly ag eed se o choices o language i ems o lan- guage a ie ies and he belie s o ideologies associa ed wi h hose choices 8S. G iniewicz | Te minologyandlanguagepolicy( owa dses ablishing... in a speech communi y (an unde ined e m, anging in size om a am- ily h ough a na ion-s a e o a mul ina ional g ouping) ealised in language p ac ices o in o mal policy decisions such as laws, cons i u ions, o egula ions (Spolsky and Lambe 2005) o he concep ion and planning o poli ical ac i i y wi h espec o language (cillia and Busch 2005), o sum o al o ideological p inciples and p ac ical ac i i ies in sol ing lan- guage p oblems in communi y o s a e as pa o na ional policy (Дешериев 1990), we see as i s main pa s language ideology and language poli ics. Language policy may be ex e nal when conce ned wi h language ela ions ou side o he coun y o in e nal, when dealing wi h language ela ions wi hin he coun y. Language ideology is claimed o ha e eme ged as a sepa a e ield o linguis ic-an h opological s udy in he las decades o he 20 h cen u y, combining linguis ic e hnog aphy wi h insigh s om he social-scien i ic s udy o ideology (Blommae 2006). Though his ield acco ding o Wool- a d is s ill e y much unde cons uc ion, i s in luence on linguis ic an- h opology, linguis ics, discou se analysis, and sociolinguis ics is conside - able (Woola d, 1998). In ou opinion, when we speak o language ide- ology we usually mean language s a egy based on he exis ing language si ua ion and on he assessmen o he pa icula language(s) s a e – lan- guage es ima ion. In language si ua ion he ollowing aspec s may be dis inguished: - numbe o exis ing idioms (unde s anding idiom as he speech p o- pe o, o ypical o , a people o place; a dialec o local language – TheOx o dcompanion o heenglishlanguage1992); - cha ac e o componen s o language si ua ion (languages, dialec s o sub-dialec s); - gene ic ela ions o idioms ( ela ed, un ela ed); - unc ions o pa icula idioms; - cha ac e o domina ing idiom – na i e o impo ed (c . Виноградов 1990). The e a e a ious ypes o language si ua ion. I may be monolingual, bilingual o mul ilingual; exoglossal, being he sum o al o di e en languages o endoglossal – he sum o al o e i o ial and social dialec s o he same language; balanced, i i s componen s (languages, dialec s) a e unc ionally equipollen , o unbalanced, when i s componen s a e Te minologija | 2010 | 17 9 dis ibu ed by a ious sphe es o communica ion and social g oups (Швейцер 1990). In language (dialec , sublanguage) es ima ion (language assessing, lan- guage analysis) he ollowing quan i a i e cha ac e is ics a e aken in o conside a ion: idiom demog aphic powe ( he numbe o na i e speake s in p opo - ion o he whole numbe o inhabi an s o he e i o y); idiom communica i e possibili ies ( he numbe o unc ions o pa icu- la idioms as ela ed o o al numbe o such unc ions); idiom poli ical s a us; idiom p es igiousness; le el o idiom de elopmen ; a e o idiom change (de elopmen ); lingual endencies (c . Виноградов 1990). The abo e men ioned ac o s should be aken in o conside a ion in language s a egy – conscious o implici in ensions conce ning a lan- guage (o languages) – aking shape in espec i e app oaches and ealised in poli ics. Such s a egy may be e ospec i e – di ec ed a p ese a ion o he exis ing s a e o a language (main aining language cul u e, limi ing o e lows o bo owings, e c.) o pe spec i e – aiming a language de elop- men , and also ake o m o lingual na ionalism when mino i y lan- guages a e h ea ened and ma ginalized by he dominance o es ablished na ional languages o lingual plu alism (language si ua ion in Swi ze land o Belgium whe e na ional languages ha e equal igh s). Language poli ics (LP ) may be de ined as ac ual poli ical ac i i y wi h espec o language and can be dis inguished om language policy (LPc), i.e. he concep ion and planning o such ac i i y (Ammon 2006) o as p ac ical ac i i ies in connec ion wi h language in communi y o s a e as pa o na ional policy (Дешериев 1990). Objec i es o LP can a y g ea - ly depending on in e es s and mo i es – e.g. ‘pu i ying’ one’s own na- ional language o o eign loans o shape i in o a mo e adequa e symbol o na ional iden i y, o sp eading he language wi hin he s a e o beyond in o de o mo e e icien ly exe powe . LP has o eckon wi h exis ing language igh s and may esul in new language igh s (Pauls on 1997). Acco ding o Ammon in e nal LP egula es language wi hin he pol- i y, while ex e nal LP aims beyond i . Fo he s a e, he o me is pa 1 0 S. G iniewicz | Te minologyandlanguagepolicy( owa dses ablishing... o in e io poli ics, he la e o ex e io poli ics. In e nal LP can be di- ec ed a language s uc u e (language co pus poli ics, LcP ) o language s a us and unc ion (language s a us poli ics, LSP ). Typical aims o LcP a e g aphiza ion (in oducing o egula ing sc ip and o hog aphy); s and- a diza ion, including codi ica ion (selec ion and codi ica ion o no ms o spelling, p onuncia ion, ocabula y, g amma , and s yle o ex s); ‘pu i i- ca ion’ (elimina ing o eign loans); and mode niza ion (de eloping mod- e n e minology). Typical aims o LSP a e sp eading he no m o a s anda d a ie y and, in he case o mul ilingual communi ies, alloca ing languages o ce ain egions (McRae 1975) o domains and unc ions – o example, o icial (Lai in 1992), educa ional (medium o subjec o each- ing on a ious educa ional le els; Lo Bianco 1987), eligious (Landau and Kellne -heinkele 2001), he media, o he mili a y (Age 1996, Schi man 1996). Poli ics o language p omo ion, language main enance, o language e i al can comp ise LcP , such as cons uc ing o econs uc ing o- cabula y, as well as LSP , such as encou aging use in he amily o ins i- u ionaliza ion in school ( Riagáin 1997). Judging by he accumula ion o names o his concep in he las 40 yea s – such as language ea men (Neus upny 1970), languagecul i a ion (P ague School 1973), languageenginee ing (Sibayan 1974), languageplan- ning (haugen 1959), and languagemanagemen (Je nudd 2001) – i is a e y impo an concep implying a wide spec e o ac i i ies. As in many simila cases hose synonyms could be a he used, in acco dance wi h hei usual meanings, as names o pa icula aspec s o language poli ics. In ou opinion wo gene al aspec s o language poli ics should be dis in- guished i s o all – language ea men (o language app oach) and lan- guage managemen . The e a e wo ypes o language app oaches – ei he language cul i a- ion o hinde ing o language de elopmen . In he case o language cul- i a ion (cul i a ion – imp o ing o de elopmen by ca e ul a en ion, aining o s udy – Longmandic iona yo englishlanguageandcul u e) c ea ing bene icial condi ions o de elopmen o language may ake a ious o ms – simply p omo ing language by imp o ing i s s a e, aising i s p es ige (in M. Inoue’s e minology – alo iza ion o a pa icula lan- guage – Inoue 2006), ad ancing i s ocabula y, simpli ying i s o hog aphy and g amma , in oducing bene i s o i s usage (p e e ences in commu- nica ion, a ailabili y o li e a u e, widening he scope o i s usage, e c.), Te minologija | 2010 | 17 1 1 launching campaigns o p omo ion, s a e measu es, such as s anda diza ion o a chosen idiom. Language s anda diza ion gi es p i ilege, au ho i y, and legi imacy o a pa icula language a ie y, and hus c ea es a hie a chy in which ‘nons anda d’ a ie ies, whe he hey a e cha ac e ized as accen s, dialec s, o o he languages, a e ma ginalized. Such a linguis ic hie a chy is o en hegemonic in he sense ha i is simply aken o g an ed by speake s. E en in a socie y whe e a mul icul u al, mul ie hnic, and mul- ilingual ideal is o icially celeb a ed and ad oca ed, he s anda dness o language is aci ly assumed and na u alized in such a way ha i is associ- a ed wi h mo al supe io i y, class mobili y, and ‘cul u e’ (Inoue 2006). In some cases language cul i a ion may ake o m o language e i ing ( e i aliza ion, eclaiming). I may also ake he c ude o m o language imposing, which con adic s he uni e sally accep ed no ion o language igh s, bu ne e heless is s ill p ac iced in some Eu opean coun ies. hinde ing (impeding, hampe ing, e ic ing, expelling, o cing ou , op- p essing) language also may ake a ious o ms om language e a ding by o icial and uno icial means, di ec language blocking (obs uc ing i s de elopmen , language nihilism) and language ex e mina ion (ous ing, dislodging, dismissing, displacing, language genocide). In he case o language managemen (managemen – he a o p ac ice o con olling he a ai s – Longmandic iona yo englishlanguageandcul- u e), ha may be iewed as ac ions aken by o mal au ho i ies such as go e nmen s o o he agencies o people who belie e ha hey ha e au ho - i y, such as pa en s, eache s, o academies, o modi y he language choices made by hose hey claim o ha e unde hei con ol (Spolsky 2004). Language managemen has h ee componen s: he de elopmen o ex- plici language plans and policies which we sugges o call language plan- ning p ope (planning – he o ming o plans designing some hing; a ang- ing (ca e ully) in ad ance – Longmandic iona yo englishlanguageand cul u e), hei implemen a ion (by ules o laws o esou ce alloca ion), which we sugges o call language egula ion, and he e alua ion o esul s and e ec s (c . Rubin and Je nudd 1979: 2–3). When we speak abou a ious ac ions cons i u ing language managemen we should i s o all conside e minological ac i i ies o a numbe o easons. Fi s ly, language de elopmen p ima ily consis s o ocabula y g ow h, he lexical le el o he language sys em being mo e p one o changes han o he le els. As we al eady poin ed ou in a numbe o 1 2 S. G iniewicz | Te minologyandlanguagepolicy( owa dses ablishing... publica ions (G iniewicz 2006, Гринев-Гриневич 2008), he g ow h o scien i ic and echnical ocabula ies is much as e han ha o he e e- yday speech ocabula y, so a p esen he numbe o e ms in some sciences ( o example chemis y o biology) exceeds he numbe o com- mon wo ds. La es in o ma ion compels us o upda e some o ou ea lie da a p esen ed in (G iniewicz 2006) – acco ding o Wikipediamode n biological e minology may now each e en up o 100 million names o a ie ies o li ing beings, and p obably nowadays special lexical uni s comp ise no 90%, bu a he mo e han 99% o new wo ds in mode n languages. This endency would emain, because special ocabula y no only al eady comp ises he majo pa o any ad anced na ional language bu also is he mos dynamic s a a o language. Secondly, la ely he e appea ed de ini e poli ical easons o pay mo e a en ion o egula ion o special ocabula y. P esen ly e minology science conce ns i sel wi h globalisa ion o he indus y, economics, cul u e, e en e e yday li e ha esul s in o ming o new condi ions o he exis ence and in e ac ion o he na ional languages. One o hem is he lessening o he numbe o he ac i ely used languages. Acco ding o he uNO calcula ions du ing he cu en cen u y app oxima ely 2,500 o he p esen ly unc ion- ing 3,000 languages will disappea om ac i e usage. Di ec o o Resea ch o Li ing Tongues Ins i u e o Endange ed Languages a Swa hmo e college (Pennsyl ania) D . K. Da id ha ison p edic s ha 90% o he Wo ld’s languages will be ex inc by 2050. O he calcula ions men ion 6,800 languages, o be ween 6,000 and 7,000 languages 90% o which a e due o disappea , he ou come being oughly he same (G enoble 2006, Go e 2006). These s a emen s sound agically, bu he sou ce o such s a emen s may be a he e minological igno ance o slo enliness when no only dia- lec s, bu some imes sub-dialec s (one- illage dialec s, говоры – he small- es e i o ial a ie ies o language, means o e e yday communica ion o inhabi an s o one, seldom a ew illages – Касаткин 1990, Пшеничнова 1997) as well a e w ong ully included in he lis s o languages (all sou ces main ain ha i is di icul o gi e an exac igu e o he numbe o lan- guages ha exis in he wo ld, because he di e ence be ween a language and a dialec is no always clea -cu ). Fo example in Dages an some o he languages, such as chamalinskij, bag alinskij, bo lihskij, godobe ihskij, bezh inskij, h a shinskij, gunzib- skij, ginuhskij, a chinskij, buduhskij, hinalugskij, – a e used by less han Te minologija | 2010 | 17 1 3 5 housand people each and do no ha e w i en o m. They a e close o losing he s a us o independen languages. I does no mean ha hey would disappea – a he hey would be igh ly app ehended as dialec s o he closes wide used languages. Acco ding o he la es publica ions some o hem al eady a e iewed as dialec s. Thus in ac we a he ha e o deal wi h co ec ing he mis ake o w ongly calling languages wha in eali y a e dialec s. In mode n condi ions o globalisa ion o he wo ld space and o ming new s a es in some a eas o Asia and A ica we may iew cen ipe al en- dencies cha ac e is ic o he pe iod o o ming new s a es in Eu ope in Mode n Times when local dialec s s ep aside and he cen al dialec se es as he basis o a na ional s a e language. The p inciple “one language – one na ion” is no alid any mo e when many na ions sha e he same language. The e may be a ious causes o disappea ance o mino i y languages – he mos na u al one being es ablishing mo e p ecisely he s a us o some mino language which in eali y a e dialec s; he e also may be poli ical easons, o example p oclaiming Molda ian language a dialec o Roma- nian language. I ollows ha he su i ing languages will widen hei unc ional domain and e i o y ou side he coun ies o hei o igin (i migh be men ioned as a cu ious ac ha a he p esen ime bo h he B i ish and he Russians cons i u e na ional mino i ies among he na i e speake s o he espec i e languages). Wi h he commencemen o in e na ional applica ion o some o he exis ing languages we come ac oss he p oblem o hei e ec i e usage. And he e he ques ion o he na ional language policy a ises. To elabo a e ecommenda ions o such policy i s o all he analysis o he p esen language si ua ion should be unde aken. A p esen we can see ha some o he poli ical decisions conce ning language ha e only momen a y poli ical easons wi h comple e igno ance o he na u al en- dencies o language de elopmen . The e o e wo king ou sound impa ial ecommenda ions based on he analysis o na u al p ocesses o e olu ion and, in pa icula , in e na ional in e ac ion o languages becomes a neces- si y. Such ecommenda ions should be conce ned p ima ily wi h e mi- nology o a numbe o easons. Fi s ly, in con as o he common e e yday ocabula y ha is ela- i ely s able and is no suscep ible o changes he special ocabula y may be egula ed. Te minology always is a esul o ag eemen on usage o 1 4 S. G iniewicz | Te minologyandlanguagepolicy( owa dses ablishing... ce ain names o concep s o specialis o he espec i e ield o knowledge. The e o e special ocabula y is qui e p obably he only pa o language ha migh be consciously manipula ed and con olled. In many languages i is possible o wo k ou se s o ules o coining new special lexical uni s and egula ing he exis ing ones. The e a e easons o belie e ha he mos nume ous laye o special wo d s ock consis ing o he so-called nomens migh be success ully egula ed and de eloped acco ding o p e- es ablished se s o ules. Secondly, i should be men ioned ha some linguis ic p oblems, espe- cially o he seman ic na u e could be much mo e clea ly iewed in he domain o e minology which is connec ed wi h he p ecise na u e o e ms. Thi dly, con olling special ocabula y may enhance g ea ly he p og ess o science and echnology. The success o con empo a y esea ch o he laws o hinking (especially c ea i e) and simula ing hinking p ocesses, in es iga ing de elopmen o human ci ilisa ion and s imula ing scien- i ic and echnological p og ess la gely depend on sol ing a numbe o e minological p oblems. Finally, he la es an h opolinguis ic da a gi e eason o belie e ha may be ce ain co espondences be ween he size o na ional ocabula y and he le el o he na ional men ali y. The e o e e minological aspec s ough o be necessa ily aken in o conside a ion (i no be decisi e) in language s a egy decisions. conscious language policy and in he i s place language managemen should conce n i sel p ima ily wi h ad anc- ing special ocabula y. Language planning, especially long- e m planning should be based on sys emic o e -all analysis o he exis ing s a e o e minology and close examina ion o he exis ing ends and endencies (an example o b ing- ing o ligh endencies o e minologies de elopmen is p esen ed in G ine 1993), p ognos ica ion o language de elopmen and es ablishing di ec- ions and modes o egula ing special ocabula y. P ac ical e minological wo k as a c ucial pa o language policy should p esuppose sys emic app oach based on sound knowledge o main cha - ac e is ics o e minologies. Expe ience o e minological wo k in he o me uSSR showed his o be qui e a di icul goal. As was men ioned in (G ine 1994) he peculia cha ac e o he So ie e minological ac- i i ies and he espec i e heo y was s ongly in luenced by he ini ial belie ha gene al language de elopmen could well be o de ed and