|
|
Language Value, Power Structure, and International Organizations' Language Choices |
Zhang Huiyu, An Yuchen |
School of International Studies, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310058, China |
|
|
Abstract International organizations (IOs) have become important players in the international community, and their language management is vital to their operation. However, scholarly attention to their language choices is inadequate. To fill this gap, this paper draws on extant literature on language policy and uses data from the Yearbook of International Organizations 2019, specifically data about the language use of 16,077 IOs in 5 different clusters, to conduct an in-depth analysis of IOs’ language choices. Several findings emerge from this empirical analysis. First, IOs’ “organizational” feature requires them to attach great importance to the pragmatic value of languages, and their administrative agencies even prioritize it in language policy-making, so as to ensure efficient operation and achieve organizational purposes. This is convincingly evidenced by the fact that English, as an international lingua franca with prominent pragmatic values, plays a dominant role in all types of IOs. Second, IOs’ “international” feature requires them to pay attention to the symbolic value of languages, which is in accord with their members’ need for language diversity. As for members (member states in particular), the use of their mother tongues in IOs not only signifies respect, recognition, and identity, but also symbolizes their international status and impacts. Thus, many IOs, especially those in Clusters Ⅱ and Ⅳ, emphasize on the language diversity in language policy-making. Third, IOs’ language policies are profoundly affected by the relative power of their members. Because of the symbolic value of languages, IOs’ language policies have long been an arena for power competition among the members, and some states target certain IO clusters and adopt different language strategies in different IOs, so as to improve their international status and influence. For instance, the Netherlands increases its international status by promoting Dutch in organizational substitutes (Cluster Ⅲ) and national
|
Received: 29 August 2020
|
|
|
|
1 |
马呈元: 《国际法》(第三版),北京:中国人民大学出版社,2012年。2 饶戈平: 《论全球化进程中的国际组织》,《中国法学》2001年第6期,第126-136页。3 张治国: 《国际组织语言政策特点调查研究》,《语言文字应用》2019年第2期,第51-60页。4 Neustupny? J., “Language management and issues of community languages,” in Kokuritsu K. K. (ed. ), Language Management for Multilingual and Multicultural Communities: Individuals and Communities Which Live the Difference, Tokyo: Bonjinsha, 1997, pp. 21-37.5 冯佳、王克非: 《近十年国际语言规划和语言政策研究的CiteSpace分析》,《中国外语》2014年第1期,第 69-84页。6 Swaan A., Words of the World: The Global Language System, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2013.7 赵守辉、张东波: 《语言规划的国际化趋势:一个语言传播与竞争的新领域》,《外国语》2012年第4期,第 2-11页。8 文秋芳: 《中文在联合国系统中影响力的分析及其思考》,《语言文字应用》2015年第3期,第33-40页。9 张贵洪: 《国际组织的行政体制初探》,《世界经济与政治》1999年第6期,第51-54页。10 葛勇平: 《国际组织法》,北京:知识产权出版社有限责任公司,2018年。11 张贵洪: 《国际组织与国际关系》,杭州:浙江大学出版社,2004年。12 Marschan R., Welch D. & Welch L., “Language: the forgotten factor in multinational management,” European Management Journal, Vol. 15, No. 5 (1997), pp. 591-598.13 Mcentee-Atalianis L., “Geostrategies of interlingualism: language policy and practice in the International Maritime Organization, London, UK,” Current Issues in Language Planning, Vol. 7, Nos. 2-3 (2006), pp. 341-358.14 戴曼纯: 《欧盟多语制与机构语言政策》,《语言政策与规划研究》2017年第1期,第1-11,91页。15 Spolsky B., Language Policy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.16 张慧玉、谢子晗: 《政府间国际组织官方语言的选择机制研究》,《外语教学与研究》2020年第2期,第213-224,320页。17 戚雨村: 《索绪尔符号价值理论》,《外语研究》2001年第2期,第5-9页。18 Bourdieu P., Language and Symbolic Power, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991.19 田鹏: 《集体认同视角下的欧盟语言政策研究》,北京:北京大学出版社,2015年。20 赵世举: 《全球竞争中的国家语言能力》,《中国社会科学》2015年第3期,第105-118页。21 赵蓉晖、阿衣西仁·居马巴依: 《语言与现代国际政治述论》,《云南师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2019年第2期,第24-30页。22 周保巍、成键主编: 《欧盟大国外交政策的起源与发展》,上海:华东师范大学出版社,2009年。23 何山华: 《中欧三国:国家转型、语言权利与小族语言生存》,北京:商务印书馆,2018年。24 美]曼瑟尔·奥尔森: 《集体行动的逻辑》,陈郁、郭宇峰、李崇新译,上海:上海三联书店、上海人民出版社,2019年。25 Wee L., “Language politics and global city,” Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, Vol. 35, No. 5 (2014), pp. 649-660.26 Kanyoro R. M., “The politics of the English language in Kenya and Tanzania,” in Cheshire J. (ed. ), English Around the World, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp. 402-419.27 Zhang Huiyu, Wu Yicheng & Xie Zihan, “Diversity or division: language choices on international organizations’ official websites,” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, Vol. 63, No. 2 (2020), pp. 139-154.28 从恩霖: 《伊斯兰教对阿拉伯语的影响》,《中国宗教》2009年第5期,第45-47页。29 阿衣西仁·居马巴依、赵蓉晖: 《语言竞争态势下俄罗斯的对外语言政策——以中亚国家吉尔吉斯斯坦为例》,《语言政策与语言教育》2019年第1期,第1-11,116页。30 Singer M., “Language follows power: the linguistic free market in the old Soviet bloc,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 77, No. 1 (1998), pp. 19-24.31 美]道格拉斯·诺思: 《经济史上的结构和变革》,厉以平译,北京:商务印书馆,2009年。32 美]彼得·卡岑斯坦: 《权力与财富之间》,陈刚译,长春:吉林出版集团有限责任公司,2007年。33 巴西]贝塔尼亚·马里亚尼、黄予勤: 《葡萄牙语言殖民化和语言政策——多样性、不平等和差异中的巴西和莫桑比克》,《外国语言与文化》2020年第1期,第3-13页。34 武心波: 《日本国际制度外交理念与实践的历史变迁》,《国际观察》2009年第6期,第23-30页。
|
|
|
|