「#1381. "interventionist" sociolinguistics」 ([2013-02-06-1])，「#1518. 言語政策」 ([2013-06-23-1])，「#2039. 言葉に関する俗説・神話と言語学的介入主義」 ([2014-11-26-1]) の記事で見たように，言語政策 (language_planning) を始めとする言語的介入の是非をめぐっては，社会言語学者の間にも大きな意見の隔たりがある．世界語としての英語を推進するような介入，刻一刻と失われてゆく世界の諸言語を何とか延命し保護しようとする介入，標準語を策定しようという介入，方言使用を奨励する介入，等々．社会言語学者 Wardhaugh は，言語政策と言語学者の介入について論じた章の最後に，次のような慎重な立場を表明している．

There is a paradox here: linguists are sometimes told that they save languages best by not acting at all; certainly they should do nothing to promote English in the world, or to standardize a language, or possibly to help in any kind of language planning anywhere. Yet, there is no assurance that they will save a single language by not acting. An alternative possibility is that intervention actually slows down decline and loss. However, there is really no hard evidence for either position. Each is essentially ideologically driven: if you believe this you do one thing and if you believe that you do another. We do well to remember that because we are involved in socio-linguistic matters, ideology is likely to be at least as potent a factor as scientific findings in determining any approach we may adopt. We will also have to confront issues of identity and power. We might be well advised to tread cautiously.

　人為的な言語的介入の是非を巡る議論や，それに関する態度表明は，それ自体が社会言語学のメタ的な問題であり，研究対象となるのである．社会言語学者は，職業柄，常に自己省察を行なわなければならない立場にいるということになろう．

　・ Wardhaugh, Ronald. An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. 6th ed. Malden: Blackwell, 2010.

[ ツイート | 固定リンク | 印刷用ページ ]