Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Elkarrizketa 85
Joshua Fishman
Joshua Fishman iparramerikarra soziolinguistikaren munduan jakitun ospetsuenetarikoa da eta Yeshiva Unibertsitateko irakasleaNew York-en. Bere zuzendaritzapean «Coniributions to the Sociology of Language» izeneko liburu-sailaargitaratzen da. Hirurehun artikulutikgora publikatu ditu etahizkuntza minorizatuak dauden leku askotan lan egin du,erakunde eta gobernuek hara bidalirik.Elkarrizketa honetan bere bizitza pro
fesionalaz arituko zaigu Fishman jauna,zenbait gai korapilotsu bezain interesgarri ikutuz; hala nola, zergatik pizten dituen hainbeste grina hizkuntzak, hizkuntz planifikazioa zer den eta zertarakobalio duen, zein den hizkuntza eta gizartearen arteko dinamika, hizkuntza normaltzeko behar diren neurriak, hizkuntzborrokaren zergatia, problemak gaindi.tzeko bideak, kultur eta nortasun-plangintza...
tu edo agregatu bezala. Unibertsitatehartan, ordura arte «ez-ofizialki» bakarrik irakatsi izan nuen asignatura bat ofizialki irakasten hasi nintzen. Hara heldubaino lehen, Psikologia Soziala deitutako gaia irakasten aritu nintzen urte askoan. Klase hartan irakasten nuena benetan hizkuntzaren soziologia zen. Baina Pennsylvania-ko Unibertsitatera heldu nintzenean, irakasle asoziatu nintzeneta urte osorako klase bat antolatzekoaukera izan nuén. Klasearen izena Giza
1
CALDERA.- Noiz eta nola hasi zinen Soziolinguistikaren arloan lan egiten? Eta zein izan dira zure laneko bizitzaluzearen mugarri nagusiak?
ERANTZUNA.- Hasi 1960.ean hasi nintzen neure lehen projektu nagusianlanean. Honen emaitza Language Loyalty in the United States izeneko liburuaizan zen. 1958.ean heldu nintzen Pennsylvania-ko Unibertsitatera, Psikologiaeta Giza Harremanezko irakasle asozia-
ZUTABE 15 (1987), 85-101 orr.
86
harremanak eta Hizkuntza zen. Ikastaroaren erdia orain Hizkuntz Psikologiadeituko nukeena zen; beste erdia Hizkuntz Soziologia. Orduan post-graduatumailan irakasten ari nintzen; lehenago,Psikologia Soziala irakasten aritu nintzenean, azpi-graduatu mailan zen. Orduan, maila altuago batean irakatsibehar nuen orain eta nire interes propioak, Hizkuntz Soziologiarako nerehurbilketa berezia, formulatzen hasinintzen. Hori egitean, arlo ezezagun edomuga zehatzik ez duenen bat aztertzerakoan askotan egin dudanez, ikerketahaundi bat proposatu nion neure buruari. Projektua nazio-mailan formulatunuen, pentsatu ahal nituen dimentsioguztiak kontutan harturik. Gero, ikerketaren medioz, dimentsio garrantzitsuak eta garrantzi gutxikoak zeintzu ziren erabakitzeko bide zehatz bat izangonuen. Ikerketa honen helburua EstatuBatuetako hizkuntz baliabideak determinatzea zen; herri eskerga honen hizkuntz baliabideak zeintzu ziren jakitea.Ordura arte, inork ez zuen gai hori aztertu. Projektu honetan Estatu BatuetakoGobernua interesatu nahi nuen etaZentsu-Bulegoari proposatu nion. Zentsu-Bulegoak beti eskatzen die soziologoei galderak eta ikasbideak iradoki ditzatela, zentsu berri bat egin bainolehen. Nik problema haundiak aurkitunituen Zentsu-Bulegoarekin, sekulan ezbait zuten hizkuntza aintzakotzat hartuizan. Ez zen batere erraza haiei aditzeraematea hizkuntzak zentsuaren galderabatzuk merezi zituela. Momentu hartan1960.eko zentsua prestatzen ari ziren,eta 1950.eko zentsuan ez zuten egin galdera bat ere hizkuntzari buruz. 1940.eanama-hizkuntzaz galdetu zuten. Orduan,ama-hizkuntzaren galdera hori eta, gainera, ama-hizkuntzatzat hartutako hizkuntzarekin zen gertatu zen jakiteko,beste galdera batzuk behar zirela aditzera ematen saiatu nintzen. Bulegoak ezzuen nire proposamena osoki onartu;baina 1960.ean ama-hizkuntzaren galdera egin zuten. Orduan, Zentsu-Bulegoarekiko nire korrespondentzia (lodi samarra zena), nolabait ere, gobernuarenbeste bulego batera pasatu zen. Hez-
Joshua Fishman
kuntza-Ministeritzak bazeukan Hizkuntz Ikerkuntz Saila deitutako bulegobat, eta hango arduradunak deitu zidan,egun batean, eta galdetu ea Zentsu-Bulegoari proposatu nion ikerketa nik neukegingo nukeen. Hori zen benetan Jainkoaren atzamarra, zerutik nireganantzetortzen zena. Dei horrek hizkuntz soziologian modu haundi batean sartzekoaukera eman zidan.Ikerketa 1960.ean hasi eta 1963 arte
egin zen. 1963.eko udan Palo Alto-ko(Californian) Centerfar Advanced Studyof the Behavior Sciences delako erakundeak konbidatu ninduen. Han urtebeteiragan nuen aurkitu nuen guztia idazten.Datuen analisia egina neukan, eta urtebete behar nuen dena idazteko. Orduan,1964.ean, soziolinguista izena erabiltzengenuen lehen pertsonak bildu egin ginen, Udako Hizkuntzalaritza Institutuan. Linguistic Society of America-k antolatzen du Institutu hau, udaoro.Han,munduko leku eta herrialde guztietatik datozen Hizkuntzalaritzako irakasle eta ikasle graduatuak biltzen dira.Beharbada, mila bat hizkuntzalari biltzen dira eta elkarrekin mintzatuz, klaseak hartuz, elkarrekin bizituz, planeatuz pasatzen dute uda. Orduan, 1964.ekouda hartan, Center far Advanced Studydelakoan urtebete pasatu ondoren, Hizkuntzalaritza Institutura inbitatu ninduten beste hamar bat soziolinguistarekinuda pasatzera.Soziolinguistika zer zen formulatzea
zen gure lana, haren barruko azpisailaketa ikergaiak definitzea eta Soziolinguistika unibertsitate gehiagotan nola sar genezakeen pentsatzea. Soziolinguistikako bilerak, liburuak eta kurtsoak planeatu behar genituen.Beraz, nik esango nuke dena zuze
nean 1958.ean hasi zela, Pennsylvaniako Unibertsitatera heldu eta kurtso graduatu horiek planeatzen hasi nintzenean. Nirea zen lehen Hizkuntz Soziologiazko ikastaro graduatua Estatu Batuetan, hala uste dut. 1959-60urte akademikoaren udaberriko semestrean zen hori.Gogoratzen naiz jendeak esaten zida
la soziolinguistika hitza luzeegia zela,
Elkarrizketa
inor ez zela izango hitz bitxi hori irakurtzeko gai. Nik, hasiera batean, soziolinguistika hitza erabili nahi izan nuen, psikolinguistika hitzaren antza zuelako. Bigarren hau hitz eta ikergai ezaguna zenordurako. Hala ere, eta zailtasun guztiak alde batera uzteko asmoz, azkeneanHizkuntz Soziologia erabili nuen. Ordudanik, azken hitz hau erabiltzen dut normalean, nire hurbilketa ohizko Soziolinguistikatik piskat aldendua dela azpimarratzeko.1950-60urtean Yeshiva Unibertsitate
ra jo nuen, neure ikerlana burutzeko.Ikerlan hori Pennsylvania-ko Unibertsitatean formulatu nuen, baina YeshivaUnibertsitatean hasi eta burutu. YeshivaUnibertsitatera 1960.ean heldu nintzen,eta 1960tik 1963ra arte han lan eginnuen; 1963tik 1964era arte Center forAdvanced Study of the Behavior Sciencesdelakoan eta 1964eko udan Hizkuntzalaritza Institutuan. Lau urtetako epekontzentratu hartan benetan hasi nintzen Soziolinguistikan.
Hala ere, zentzu batean gutxienez,orain arte esan dudana bakarrik erantzun oso formal bat besterik ez da. Horidena azaleko kontua da. Hori bainolehen ere Hizkuntz Soziologia irakatsibait nuen, baina Sozial Psikologia bezala. Eta askoz lehenago ere, neure Doktorego-Tesia gai soziolinguistiko batí buruz idatzi nahi izan nuen. Baina nire irakasleak gai hartaz inoiz ezer entzun gatxak ziren. Irakasle batek, modu paternalean, hauxe esan zidan: «Joshua, lehen doktoregoa lortu ezazu, gero, nahiduzuna egin dezakezu.» Orduan, SozialPsikologiazko tesi tradizionalago batidatzi nuen, estereotipo negatiboei buruz.Ikasle post-graduatu nintzelarik, Co
lumbia Unibertsitatean, sari bat jasonuen, lehen sari bat. Yiddish ScientificInstitute delakoak urtero sari bat ematenzion yidix hizkuntzari buruz ikerlanikonena egiten zuen ikasle graduatuari.Nik 1950.ean lehen saria irabazi nuenElebitasuna yidix eskola batean izenekolanarekin. Elebitasun-maila (hau da, yidixaren ezagutza-maila, denek ingelesa
87
ondo bait zekiten) haurraren eta familiaren beste ezaugarriekin erlazionatzensaiatu nintzen. Yidix eskola batean, yidixa ondo zekiten eta hain ondo ez zekitenhaurren arteko diferentzia zer zen jakinnahinuen.Horrek historiaren hasiera 1958.etik
1948.era atzeratzen du. Baina hasieraren bila bazabiltza, benetako hasieranire gurasoen etxean aurkitzen da, haurra nintzelarik. Hau da, nire interesazerk piztu zuen jakin nahi baldin baduzu, eta ez nere bizitza profesionalarenhasiera bakarrik. Etxean egunero hizkuntz soziologiaz mintzatzen ginen mahai inguruan; eta beti yidixa zen gai nagusia: zein familiak yidixa erabiltzen zuten, zeinek ez zuten erabiltzen, nola bultzatu familia gehiago yidixa erabiltzera.Gurasoak hizkuntz ekintzaileak ziren,egunaren hogeitalau orduetan. Horrelako pertsonak izango dituzue hemen ere.Bizi <lira, lo egiten dute, jaten dute, etabeti, etengabe, hizkuntzaz dihardute.Hauentzat, jendearen bizitza eta bizitzanazionala hizkuntz helburuek determinatu behar dituzte. Gurasoak yidix-ekintzaileak ziren, yidix-eskolak eraikitzenzituzten, yidix-idazleei laguntzen zietenliburuak argitaratzen eta saltzen, yidixezko antzerki taldeak Philadelphiaraekartzen saiatzen ziren; yidixa unibertsitatean eta hiriko bizitzan sartzeko ahaleginak egiten zituzten. Hori zen etxekogiro intelektuala nire haurtzaroan. Nikgurasoekin eta arrebarekin yidixez bakarrik hiz egiten nuen. Eta guzti honekbere ondorioak izan zituen, nire arrebayidixezko poeta bilakatu bait da, eta liburu pila bat argitaratu du, eta baita sariasko irabazi ere. Ni yidix-irakasle batekin ezkondu nintzen. Eta gure seme-alabak eta beren haurrak yidixdunak dira ...Orduan, historiaren hasiera nahi duzunbezainbat atzera dezakezu.G.- Zer esango diguzu zeure oraingo
interesei buruz? Badakigu etnografia interesatzen zaizula.
E.~ Egia esateko, ia ikerlan guztietan etnografia pixka bat sartzen dut. Etnografia eguneroko bizitzaren miaketazehatza da. Zaila- da kuantifikatzen,
•
88
nahiko intuitiboa bait da. Batez ere,ulermen eta interpretapen intuitiboetanoinarritzen da. Objektiba daiteke, halaere, alde hatera gelditzen bazara eta aldiluzean jende berarekin lan egiten baduzu. Modu honetan jendea ohitu egitenda eta ez zaitu miatzaile bezala ikusten.
Ikerlan nagusi guztietan, horrelakozerbait egiten saiatu naiz. Language Loyalty izeneko nire liburuak, 1958.eanagertu zenak, bi gizatalderen etnografiabat dauka. Gizataldeak Pennsylvania-kobi komunitate ukraniar ziren; bata,ikatz-meatzaritzatik bizi zen; bestea, hiriindustriala zen.
Miaketaren bitartez, jendearen portaeraren zergatiak determinatzen saiatunintzen: jendeak bere eginbeharrak nolaulertzen zituen eta zer nolako erreakzioak zituen. Bilingualism in the Barrio,1972.eko liburuan ere, etnografia piskabat egin nuen. Kapitulu oso bat Barrio-ko bizitzaren deskribapena da; hanazaltzen dut baita ere jendeak elebitasunari, espainierari eta espainieraren erabilerari buruz uste duena. The Rise andthe Fall of the Ethnic Reviva! (1985),neure liburu berrienean ere, lau eskolatako etnografia egin dut. Ikerlan guztietan etnografía apur bat egiten saiatunaiz, baina ez naiz ni etnografo porrokatua. Ez da nere metodorik maiteena,ezta nere metodo bakarra ere. Normalean, talde haundietako datu kuantifikagarriekin lana egiten dut. Etnografianezin lan egin dezakezu gizatalde haundiekin. Etnografiazko lanak komunitatetxiki bat behar du, auzo bat, eskola bat.Nik normalki datu askotako ikerketakegiten ditut. Nere psikologiako ikasketen ondorioa izango da. Nik ikerketarenmetodologia, neurkuntza eta neurkuntzteoria irakasten ditut. Hau guztiau Psikologiatik hartu dut neure soziolinguistikazko lanerako. Agian egingo ditudanikerlanetan ere etnografia apur bat sartuko dut beti, baina nik ez dut berezikietnografia egiten.
Oraingoan bi lanetan ari naiz. Aldebatetik, orain dela ia zortzi urte hasinuen idazki bat bukatzen ari naiz. Horisozial historia eta biografiazko lan bat da.
Joshua Fishman
Izan ere, ikasle azpi-graduatua nintzenean Historia ikasi nuen. Post-graduatua nintzelarik bakarrik hartu nuen Psikologia espezializaziotzat. Eta oraingonire lana hizkuntz soziologiaren alorrekoa da. Egin ditudan gauza guztiak konbinatzen saiatu naiz: historia, psikologiaren metodología eta kuantifikatzea,eta hizkuntza eta gizartean daukadan interesa. Orduan, orain hizkuntz mugimendu baten buruzagiaren historia soziala egiten ari naiz. Nire ustez, mugimendu horien buruzagiak, mundu osoanzehar aurkitzen direnak, ez dira beharbezainbat aztertuak izan. Eta ez duguulertzen horien dinamika eta ez dakiguzein neurritan hizkuntza gauza nagusiaedo bigarren mailako gauza bat denhaien programa osoan; eta gauzak nolaaldatzen diren denboraz eta hizkuntzariematen zaion garrantzia nola aldatzenden. Halako historia sozialaz dihardut;hots; pertsona baten biografía sozialabere ingurune historikoan. Liburuarenbehin-behineko izenburua Personality,Ideology and Society da.
Aipatu beste projektua oraintxe basten ari naiz. Urtebete bakarrik daramathorrekin. Estatu Batuetan argitaratzenden espainieraren ikerketa bat da. Estatu Batuetan leku askotako etorkin espainieradun talde haundiak bizi dira. Horrelako lekurik ez da munduan besterik.Han Kubatar-Amerikarrak, Puerto Ricotarrak eta Mexikar-Amerikarrak batzen dira, beste inon ez bezala. Oso gizatalde haundiak dira, 18 miloi gutxi gorabehera.
Beste lankide eta ikasleekin batera,aipatu hiru gizataldeen espainera aztertzen ari naiz. Haien prentsa ikertzenbere osotasunean, egunkari popularraknahiz aldizkari intelektualak. Ikusi nahidut ea haien espainera, hasiera bateandesberdintasun erregional markatuak zituena, batzen edo uniformatzen ari den,leku berean, elkarrekin, bizi direlakoeta denek ingelesaren eragin indartsuapairatzen dutelako. Estatu Batuetakoespainolezko prentsa jatorrizko herrialdeetan egiten denarekin erkatzen arigara. Kubako prentsa eta Estatu Batue-
Elkarrizketa
tako Kubatar-Amerikarren prentsa irakurtzen ari gara; baita era Puerto Ricoko prentsa eta Estatu Batuetako PuertoRicotar-Amerikarren prentsa, eta Mexikoko prentsa eta Mexikar-Amerikarrena. Berrikuntza lexikalak, ezaugarritasun errejionalen galera, aldakuntza gramatikalak, etab. aztertzen ari gara. Honetarako, espainerazko lerroak miloikairakurri eta aztertu behar ditugu. Ikerlana nahiko kuantitatiboa izango da, etamakina bat datu erabiliko dugu.
Idazleei buruz ere jakin nahi dugu. Ingelesetik itzulitako artikuluak ezezik,editorialak eta artikulu sinatuak ereikertu nahi ditugu. Prentsa-mota edo jenero ezberdinak ikertu nahi ditugu; iragarkien espainiera editorialen edo artikuluenarekin konparatzeko.Ikerlan honetan ez dut uste etnogra
fiarik egingo dugunik. Nahiz eta etnografian interesaturik izan, beste ikerkuntza metodoetan bezala, ez naiz nietnografoa per se. Nik ezagutzen ditutetnografia soilik egiten duten pertsonak.Hauek etnografia egiten dute, sinistenduten gauza bakarra delako, edo etnografia erosoa aurkitzen dutelako. Nikneuk uste dut etnografia tresna indartsua dela, baina ez du izan behar tresnabakarra soziolinguista batentzat.
G.- Hizkuntz gutxiengoak daudenleku askotan lan egin duzu, erakunde etagobernuek hara bidalirik. Zerbait esangoal diguzu horretaz?
E.- Urte eta leku askotan lan egindut; batzuetan, gobernu batentzat, etabeste batzuetan, nire kabuz, erakundebaten laguntzaz. Irlandan lan egin nuendenbora luzetxoaz. Hori orain dela hamar urte baino gehiago bukatu zen. Sarritan joan ohi nintzen Irlandara, aholku-emaile bezala: irlandiera indartzekoahaleginetan laguntzeko. Flanders etaFrislandan (Holandako eskualde bat)ere Jan egin dut.
Baita Israelen, Indonesian eta Indianere. Osoan, dozen erdi bat herritan edolan egin dut, bai Europan eta baitaHego-Ekialdeko Asian ere. Gainera,
89
ahal dudan bezainbat bidaiatzen dut.Behin baino gehiagotan munduaren biraegin dut. Beti leku berriak ezagutu nahiditut, esperientzia zuzena izateko. Herribatzuetan hobe da hango ikertzaileekinmintzatzea idazten dutena irakurtzeabaino, esan nahi dutena agian ez baitdute idazten. Oro har, hobe da han egotea urrundik irakurtzea baino. Leku guztietan egoten saiatu naiz, eta berriro joaten segitzen dut, aldaketak ikusteko.Salbuespena Sobietar Batasuna da, hirualdiz sarrera debekatu bait didate. Mundu guztiko ikertzaileekin harreman personalak desarroilatzen saiatu naiz. Sobietar Batasunean ere harreman pertsonal onak baditut. Editatzen ditudan aldizkari eta liburuetarako, mundu guztiko jendearen laguntza eskatzen dut beti;horrek beste egoera berdintsuen berriematen bait dit.Pertsonak edo auzoak ezezik, iker
kuntz unitatetzat herriak eta eskualdeakere hartzen ditut. Orain herri elebakareta eleaniztunen arteko diferentziaikertzen ari naiz; hizkuntzaren aldetikhomogeneo eta heterogeneo diren herriak. 1964.ean hasi nintzen hau aztertzen. Orain berriro hartu dut gai hori,Nazio Batuek prestatutako liburuak erabiliz. Munduko leku guztiak ulertzensaiatzen naiz ni. Hara joan baldin banaiteke, hara noa; bestela, ahalik etagehien irakurtzen dut munduko lekugúztiei buruz. Euskal Herriari buruz ezdago askorik ingelesez: baina, zorionez,espainolez irakur dezaket.
G.- Leku guztietan hizkuntza kezkahaundia da. Zergatik eragiten du hainbestegrina hizkuntzak?
E.- Hizkuntza kulturari loturikdago, hiru modutan. Hasteko, badagoerlazio indexikal bat: hizkuntzak kulturaren elementuak eta portaerak izendatzen ditu. Bigarrenez, hizkuntza kulturaren zati haundi bat da; hizkuntza kulturada. Adibidcz, agurrak, otoitzak, legeak,filosofia, hizkuntzan daude. Ezin ditzakezu kulturatik bereiztu. Neurri haundibatean hizkuntza kultura da. Kulturarenaspektu asko hizkuntzari loturik daude.
90
Gauza askotarako kultura eta hizkuntzagauza bera <lira. Eta hirugarrenez, hizkuntza kultura baten sinboloa da. Hizkuntza batek kultura jakin bat adierazten du. Hirugarren lokarri hau da jendeak normalean ikusten duena. Bestebiak askotan ahazten <lira,baina oso garrantzitsuak <lira horiek ere; batez erebigarrena.Hizkuntza gizakiok dugun sinbolo-sis
tema nagusia da. Baditugu matematikazko sinboloak, kimikazkoak, jazkera-sinboloak, etab. Baina hizkuntza sinbolo-sistemarik orokorrena da eta kultura osoaadierazteko erabil -dezakegu. Hizkuntzak, sinbolo-sistema delako, kulturarenbalioak, ohiturak, historia, pairadurak,helburuak, etab. adierazten ditu. Ez<lagoezer sakraturik hitzetan, baina hitzek gauza sakratuak adierazten dituzte.Eta hizkuntzak sinbolizatzen dituen gauza horiengatik bizitza bizitzeak edo eskaintzeak merezi du, batzuen ustez.
G.- Zer da hizkuntz planifikazioa etazertarako balio du?
E.- Hizkuntz planifikazioa hizkuntzproblemak konpontzeko bide bat da.Problemen konponketa ekintza kontzertatu, antolatu, zuzendu eta arau-emailearen bidez egiten da. Agintariak <lirahizkuntzarako dirua, langileak, etalehentasuna eman ditzaketenak. Haiekerabaki behar dute maila batean edobestean hizkuntz problema bat dagoela.Batzuetan badago problema bat hiz
kuntza oso ahul dagoelako, Irlandan bezala; eta irauteko berehalako laguntzabeharrezkoa da. Edo agintariek erabakidezakete hizkuntzak ez duela problemarik bizitzeko, baina hizkuntzaren funtzioak zabaldu nahi dituztela hezkuntzan, lanaren munduan edota gobernuangutxienez erdiko mailatan. Edo, une batean, agintariek erabaki dezakete hizkuntza erdiko mailan ondo finkatuta dagoela eta orain hizkuntza bakartzat funtziona dezakeela, goiko mailetan ere.Orduan, mutur batean, hasieran, hiz
kuntza oso ahula da eta beste hizkuntzabat indartsuagoa izango da gizartean.
Joshua Fishman
Hizkuntza mehatxatuak (hizkuntza markatua deitzen diogu) oso lekune komunikatibo txikia dauka gizartearen bizitzan,beste hizkuntza hain indartsua izanik.Azkeneko muturrean, aldiz, hizkuntzamarkatua oso indartsua da azkenean etaia bizitza-lekune osoa betetzen du. Hanzegoen beste hizkuntza dagoeneko osozokoratua eta nahiko ahula da: bakarrikfuntzio gutxi batzuk betetzen ditu, normalean talde-arteko funtzioak. Orduan,hasiera batean hizkuntza nagusia zenaazkenean hizkuntza gutxitua izan daiteke, hizkuntz taldeak beste taldeekikokomunikaziorako bakarrik erabiltzenbaldin badu. Eta jakina da gizarte guztietan barne-komunikazioa kanpo-komunikazioa baino askoz garrantzitsuagoa dela.Estatu Batuetan badago hizkuntz pla
nifikatze frango ingelesaren alde; bainahizkuntza arrotzen ezagutza hobeagotzeko amerikar gizartean eta hizkuntzagutxituei laguntzeko ere badago planifikazio dexente. Jende askok uste du zerbait egin behar dugula hizkuntza gutxituen alde.
Orduan, gizarte indartsuenetan erebadago hizkuntz planifikatzea; ekonomia edo politikaren aldetik problemarikez badago ere.Hala ere, munduan zehar, hizkuntz
planifikaziorik gehiena lehen aipatu ditudan lehenengo eta bigarren epeetangertatzen da. Hau da, inguruko hizkuntza batek funtzioen zati haundi bat hartuduenean. Orduan, hizkuntz planifikatzea hizkuntza markatuaren funtzioakzabaltzeko edo hizkuntza ahuldu etabaztertu bat mantentzeko egiten da gehienbat.
G.- Hizkuntz planifikazioan bi sistemaren dinamika dugu. Alde batetik, statusaren planifikazioaren eta corpus-planifikazioaren arteko dinamika. Bestaldetik, hizkuntza eta gizartearen dinamika,ekonomia eta beste alorretan.
E.- Hizkuntzaren statusa planifikatzen duzunean, gizartearen bizitzarekintopo egiten duzu. Hizkuntzaren corpusa
Elkarrizketa
planifikatzerakoan, aldiz, hiztegiarekinbakarrik diharduzu eta hori gizartearekin ihardutea baino askoz errazagoa da.Hala ere, hiztegi horri indarra eman nahibaldin badiozu, orduan gizartearekin lanegin beharko duzu. Orduan, azken finean beti status-planifikazioa egitenduzu. Gizartean eragina izan nahi izangoduzu; gizarteak hizkuntza erabil dezan,edo zuk prestatutako corpus edo hiztegia onar dezan administrazio edo zientziarako. Horregatik status-planifikazioa beti da motorra eta indarra hizkuntzplanifikazioan.Status-planifikazioa lerrotu eta zuzen
du behar da hizkuntz komunitatearenproblema bereziak kontutan hartuz.Hizkuntz komunitate bakoitzean badago hizkuntz sare asko eta hizkuntz sarehauek maila ezberdinetan izango dira.Batzuek ez dute hizkuntza erabiliko.Beste batzuek hizkuntza erabiliko dute,baina oharkabe, beste hizkuntzarik ezagutzen ez dutelako eta beste inorekin harremanik ez dutelako. Beste batzuek,bukatzeko, hizkuntzaren jakinaren gainean erabiliko dute. Horregatik, status-planifikazioa egitea nahikoa zail da problema konkretu eta bereziei egokitunahi badiezu; gizartea ez bait da sinpleaeta gizarte baten barruan diferentziahaundiak aurkitzen bait dira.Problema nagusia bilatu behar duzu.
Problema txikiez ardura zaitezke, problema nagusia ikusi gabe. Hori izangolitzateke zoologikora joan eta bakarrikzorriak ikustea, elefantea ikusi gabe.Problema nagusia jende gehienak hizkuntza ez dakiela baldin bada, erdikoedo goiko mailaren arazoei garrantzigehiago ematea hizkuntz komunitatearen problema nagusia ez ikustea da.
Problema den bezala onartzeko ahaleginak egin behar ditugu. Errazena daleku batean edo bestean dauden erakundeetara jo eta haiei bakarrik kasu egitea.Hori oso erraza da. Oso erraza da eskolaeta komunikabideetara jotzea, antolatzen dituen egitura edo erakunde bateansartuta bait daude. Baina oso zaila da familiengan eragina izatea, familiak ezbait dira goitik kontrolatzen. Eta gauza
91
bera gertatzen da lanaren munduan edogazteen kulturan ere; arlo hauetan ez dabatere erraza eragina izatea. Halarikere, etxea, auzoa eta lantokia garrantzihaundiko eremuak dira hizkuntz plangintzarako eta ama-hizkuntzaren iraupena baldintzatzen dute. Hain zuzenere, hauexek dira lehentasuneko arloak.
Badago beste arazo nagusi bat hizkuntz plangintzan. Hizkuntz plangintzak erabaki behar du zer egin hizkuntzamarkatuaren iraupenari buruz. Erabakibehar dugu ama-hizkuntza bezala iraundezala nahi dugun ala ez. Beste aukerabat da hizkuntza markatua belaunalditikbelaunaldira bigarren hizkuntza bezalairagan dadila. Bigarren aukera hau erezaila da, baina ez da ezinezkoa. Hizkuntza bat betiko bizi daiteke bigarren hizkuntza bezala.Hizkuntza markatuaren nagusitasun
osoaren helburua alde batera uzten badugu, hizkuntza markatuak (mehatxatua zegoenak) eta inguratzen duen hizkuntza boteretsuagoak elkarrekin bizibeharko dute gizartean eta hizkuntzplangintzak elkar-bizitze hori arautubeharko du. Nire iritziz, erakundeetanhizkuntza markatuaren indarra ziurtatzeko, ahalik eta urrutien ez joatea tamalgarria izango Iitzateke. Hala ere,osoa ezinezkoa denean erdia ez hartzeahutsegitea da. Hori egiten baduzu, eremu osoa hartu nahian izugarrizko galeraizan dezakezu.Plangintza oso gauza zaila eta konple
xua da. Badago beti elkarrekintza konplexu bat gizarte, kultura, hizkuntza etanortasunaren artean. Hizkuntz plangintzan dabiltzanek kontutan hartu behardute beti arazo oso korapilotsu batenparte bat direla eta hizkuntzak gizarteanduen statusa manipulatzen dutenean, gizartea bera manipulatzen ari direla.Arrazoi honengatik.gauzak ondo egiteko hizkuntz plangileek beste giza plangileekin batera Janegin behar dute.
G.-Erabaki politikoak beharrezkoakdira hizkuntza bat normaltzeko, ezta?Baina erabaki hauek behar den aldaketaeraginal dezaketei Horrez gain, zein bes-
92
te elementu edo neurri behar dugu nahiditugun aldaketak eragiteko?
~-- Ba, badira beti erabaki politikoak, gobernuari ez badagozkio ere.Gure mundu honetan hizkuntza aunitzek ez dute gobernurik, ez <liragobernubatek arautuak. Gobernuak baino askozhizkuntza gehiago <laudemunduan. Hizkuntz komunitate askok bere buruagobernatzen du, gobernurik izan gabe.Haien agintariak, hizkuntzaren arloan,poetak <lira, edo erlijiozko zuzendariakedo ohizko buruzagiak. Orduan, politika eta agintari politikoen definizioa zabaltzen baduzu, eta han kulturan onartuta <lauden agintari eta buruzagi guztiak sartzen badituzu, orduan beti aurkituko duzu politikaren eragina hizkuntzplangintzan.
Politikalarientzat ahalezkoa eta ezinezkoa bereiztea da problema nagusia.Politika ahalezkoaren artea izan da deitua. Ahalezkoa zer den ikusi eta gero,ahalezkoa desiragarri bezala aurkeztubehar dute politikalariek. Zer esanik ez,jendea ez dator bat honetan. Ahalezkoazer den ez <lagobeti argi eta garbi, etahorregatik programa desberdinak egongo <liragizartea aldatzeko, eta programahauek elkarren aurkakoak izango <lira.Gizarte guztietan <laude ideia ezberdinak ahalezkoa zer den edo aldakuntzadesiragarrien zentzua definitzerakoan.Hala ere, hizkuntz plangintzan hasi baino lehen, agintariek erabakiak hartu behar dituzte. Akordio politikorik gabe, hizkuntz plangintza noraezean doa, han-hemen gauzatxoak eginez, baina ondoriosakonik izan gabe; agintariek ez dutelako zehazki definitu problema zein denedo lehentasuna zeri eman. Zenbat etaadostasun falta gehiago agintari politikoen artean, hainbat eta gutxiago egindezake hizkuntz plangintzak.Agintariek gizartea kontrolatzen eta
arautzen baldin badute, kultura planifikatzen badute, argitaratzen diren liburuak eta ikusten diren programak kontrolatzen badituzte, ekonomia eta jendearen bizitza arautzen badute, hizkuntzarazoa aise konpon daiteke. Agintari
Joshua Fishman
guztiek gizartearen bizitza arautzeko batbadatoz, hizkuntz arazoa kontrola etakonpon dezakete.Zenbait herritan, teknologiaren alde
tik oso aurreratuak ez direnetan, zeukaten hizkuntz problema konpondu dute,agintariek gizartea arras kontrolatzendutelako. Orduan, problema mugatzekoeta horrekin lan egiteko ez zituzten helburu eta aukera ezberdinek ematen dituzten zailtasunak.Herri aurreratu askotan, alderantziz,
boterea oso hedatua <lago,iritzi desberdin asko <laude, eta egiten den hizkuntzplangintza denei gustatu behar zaie. Botere-egituraren sail eta talde ezberdinekproblema jakin bati buruz iritzi ezberdinak izango dituzte eta gizartea, horrela,oso poliki mugituko da, bai aldaketaekonomikoak eta bai hizkuntz aldaketakeragiteko. Horrelako egoera batean,hizkuntz plangintzak ezin du arinki arrakasta izan. Botere-egiturak erabakiakhartu eta konpartitu behar ditu eta, gainera, zenbait gizartetan, egiten duenajustifikatu egin behar du. Horregatik, gizarte moderno gehienetan, ezin dezakezusoilik hizkuntz plangintza egin, edo soilik ekonomi edo hezkuntz plangintza, ingurune politikoa dela eta. Beti botere-egiturarekin topo egingo duzu.
G.- Hizkuntz minorizatu bat dagoenean, hizkuntza normaltzeko ahaleginekaldakuntzen aurkako erresistentziarekintopo egiten dute, behin eta berriro. Horrelakoetan, hizkuntz borrokak nahitanahiezkoa dirudi. Zergatik da hori horrela eta zer egin dezakegu problema haugainditzeko?
E.- Lehen eta behin, zer gatazka motaz ari garen pentsatu behar dugu, zereneta gizarte guztietan beti bait <lagogatazka. Gizartea bera gatazkakoia da. Euskal gizartea guztiz euskaldundua balegoere, gatazkaz beteta egongo litzateke. Espainol gizartean, guztiek espainolez hitzegiten dute eta badaukate makina batgatazka. Hizkuntz gatazka aldakuntzasozialaren ezaugarrietako bat da; hizkuntzaren status-aldakuntzak pertsonen
Elkarrizketa
status-aldakuntza ere suposatzen baitdu. Hizkuntzaren statusa aldatzen baldin bada, zenbait gizakiren statusa erealdatu egingo da. Aldakuntzaren aurkako erresistentzia gertatzen da, gizataldebatzuek beren statusa aldatu nahi ez dutelako. Gizatalde horiek eliteak dira.Herri hau euskalduntzen bada, eliteak
aldatuko dira. Oraingo eliteek, lanpostuonak dituztenek, boteredunek, boterehori konpartitu edo galdu beharko lukete, botere hori gaztelaniaren bidez lortueta mantentzen dutelako. Beren bizimodua espainolez zertu da eta beren nortasuna gaztelania da; gaztelaniaren erabilera zehatzean oinarritzen da. Orduan,eliteen aldatzeak erresistentzia ekarrikodu, eta erresistentzia hori gatazkarenarrazoia izango da. Hala ere, gatazkahaundi bat ez da nahitaezkoa, problemamaila apal batean definitzen bada. Adibidez, euskararen problema, zenbait nekazal eskualdetako euskararen iraupenaren problema bezala definitzen baduzu; beste eskualdeak alde batera utziz,gaur egungo eskualde euskaldunez bakarrik arduratzen bazara, orduan gatazkagutxitu egingo duzu. Problema gutxitzeko zera esan dezakezu: «eskualdeeuskaldunak dira Euskal Herriaren bihotza, euskara han dago ziur; eman ditzagun arauak eta legeak euskara hanmantentzeko, bere bizitza han ziurtatzeko». Edo, zure helburua bada euskaraerdiko mailetan erabil dadila, euskaldunek etxean eta erdiko erakundeekikoharremanetan euskaraz hitz egin dezatela eta gaztelaniaz Espainiako beste eskualdeekiko eta goi mailako erakundeekiko harremanetan, ez duzu izango gatazka handirik. Gatazka zure plangintzaren ondorioa da. Goiko mailetan eragina izan nahi baduzu, eliteekin topoegingo duzu eta eliteek inoiz ez dute beren statusa aldatu nahi. Orduan, saiatubeharko duzu eliteak aldakuntza onardezan. Zenbat eta euskarari eremu handiagoa eman, hainbat eta jende gehiagok bere bizitza aldatu beharko du. Etaagian, egia da jendea euskararen aldedagoela, baina beti jeneralean, bestenorbaitentzat: oso gutxitan aldatu nahidu jendeak bere bizitza eta familia, adis-
93
kide eta lankideekiko harremanak eten.Zure helburua hori bada, gatazka aurkituko duzu. Ezin duzu espero jendeak,eta batez ere eliteek, heziek, boteredunek , goi-mailetan daudenek, aberatsek,hizkuntz plangintza onartuko dutenik,bakoitzak bere bizimodua bait du eta eliteek gehiago gal dezakete, elite berri baten konpetentzia dela eta. Elite berrihori prestatuta egongo da ordura arte erdaraz egin ziren gauzak euskaraz egiteko. Eta lehengoak ez dira gai izango gauza horiek berriek bezain ongi euskarazegiteko: berriek euskaraz gauzak egiteko prestakuntza bait daukate.Ondo oinarritutako botere-egitura
bat aldatzen saiatzen bazara, gatazkasortuko duzu. Orduan, hizkuntz plangintzak ez du bakarrik erresistentzia eragiten, gatazka bultzaten du. Gatazka aurrera joateko modua da. Ez da odol etaminik gabeko ebaketarik; eta ondo finkatutako elite bat mugitzean gatazkasortuko duzu. Orduan, zera kontsideratu behar dúzu: gehiegi egin nahian denagal dezakezula. Euskararen aldeko mugimenduaren abangoardiak gal dezakeeta, orduan, atzera joango zara; gatazkagutxiago sortzen duen lekune batean geratu beharko duzu.Gatazkaren arazoa bi ikuspegitatik
ikusi behar da: hizkuntz markatuarenikuspegitik eta hizkuntza ez-markatuaren ikuspegitik. Hizkuntza bakoitzakbere elite eta interesak ditu, eta intereshoriek elkar jotzeari gatazka deitzendiogu.
G.- Azkenik, zure ustez, hizkuntzplangintzarekin batera, kultur eta nortasun-plangintza ere egin beharko genuke?
E.- Hizkuntz plangintza, nahitaez,kultur eta nortasun-plangintza da. Jakina, badago kultur eta nortasun-plangintza hizkuntz plangtntzaz kanpo ere.Agintari guztiek kulturan eta nortasunean eragina eduki nahi dute. Adibidez,buruzagi erlijiosoek kultura eta nortasunean eragina eduki nahi dute. Era berean, agintari politikoek beren ideologíapolitikoaren bidez eragina eduki nahidute arlo horietan. Orduan, kultur eta -
94
nortasun-plangintza ez da bakarrik hizkuntz plangintzaren ondorioa. Baina,hizkuntza kulturaren parte haundi bateta kultura osoaren sinboloa denez gero,hizkuntz plangintzak kultur eta nortasun-plangintza izan behar du. Hizkuntzaren corpusa eta statusa aldatzen badituzu, kultura aldatuko duzu halabeharrez.Nortasuna beti da aldez psikologikoa
eta aldez soziologikoa eta kulturala.Nortasunak badauzka aspektu guztihauek; eta, horregatik, gizartea eta kultura hizkuntz plangintzaren bidez aldatzen dituzunean, nortasuna ere aldatuegiten duzu. 'Euskara bakarrik nekazal eskualdee
tan eta nekazaritzaren munduan erabiltzen bada, edo, alderantziz, euskarazientzia eta industriaren maila guztietanerabiltzen bada, kultura eta nortasun diferenteak izango ditugu. Euskotarra izateak esan nahi duena ez da gauza beraizango eta euskaldun hitzaren esanahia
An interview with Joshua Fishman
Z:When and how did you start to work in thefield of Sociolinguistics and what are the mainlandmarks of your curriculum up to now?
JF: In 1960 I started to work on my first majorproject. This resulted in the book called Language Loyalty in the United States. I had come to theUniversity of Pennsylvania in 1958asan associate professor of Psychology and Human Relationsand there I began to teach officially a course thatI had only taught unofficially before. I hadtaught Social Psychology for many years beforethen. Actually, 1was teaching Sociology of Language, except that it was listed-in the catalogasSocial Psychology. When I got to the Universityof Pennsylvania, I formulated ayear long coursecalled Human Relations and Language. Half theyear was what I would now call Psychology ofLanguage and the other half, Sociology of Language. I taught them at the graduate level, whereas prcviously 1had taught Social Psychology atthe under graduate level. So, I had to teach themata higher level and I began to formula te my owninterest, my own approach to Sociology of Language. In doing so, as I think I have often done in
Joshua Fishman
ere ezberdina izango da. Aipatu dudanbigarren kasuan, euskara dakitenek herri haundi eta modernoen parean ikusiko dute beren burua.Jakin behar duzu status edo corpus
-aren plangintzaz ari zarelarik, giza, kultur eta nortasun-plangintza ere egiten arizarela. Nahitaezkoa da. Gure nortasunaren parte bat da gure burua hizkuntzabaten hiztuntzat hartzea. Hizkuntz mugimenduak kontzientzia hori pizten saiatzen <lira.Egia esan, hizkuntz mugimenduek hizkuntza jakin bat ez dakitenakmotz edo ez-osotzat hartzen dituzte; beren nortasunaren berrikaskuntza nortasun-sortzearen alderdi bezala hartzen dakontzienteki. Horixe da guk, hizkuntzplangileok, egiten duguna; nortasuna dagure xedea. Ohartu behar dugu, orduan,hizkuntz plangintzak ez duela hizkuntzahelburutzat. Hizkuntza prozesu askozhaundiago baten partea da. Hizkuntzplangintzan dihardugu, gizartea kontrolatzeko, kultura aldatzeko.
ltzultzailea: J.I. Hualde
mapping out a field that is unknown or one whose dimensions are not quite clear, I began to formula te a nation-wide study, a large-scale studythat would study ali the dimensions that I couldthink of. On the strength of such a study 1couldthen have a basis on which to decide which werethe most important dimensions and the less important ones. I formulated the study in order tofind out what were the language resources of theUnited Sta tes-no one had studied that issue before. In order to get the American Governmentinterested in that problem, I suggested it to theBureau of the Census- The Bureau always askssociologists before any census to suggest thingsthat should be studied and how they should bestudied. 1 ran into a lot of trouble with the Bureau, because they had never taken languagethat seriously. lt wasn't easy to convince themthat language deserved several questions in thecensus. At that moment they were preparing forthe census of 1960. In 1950 they hadn't asked asingle language question. In 1940 they had askeda mother tongue question. I was trying to convince them that they should ask mother tongue andseveral subsequent questions to clarify what hadhappened to the language claimed as mothertongue , since it was a mother tongue during
Elkarrizketa
childhood. Although the Bureau essentially rejected my recornmendation, they did ask mothertongue again. Ali of my correspondence in theBureau, which was quite voluminous, was somehow passed on to another office of the Govemment. There was a Language Research Section in the Office of Education, and the man incharge of it called me one day and asked mewhether 1myself would Jike to do the kind of study that 1had been suggesting to the Bureau. Thatreally was the finger of God coming down andpointing at me. lt gave me the opportunity to getstarted in sociology of Janguage in a big way.That study was conducted from 1960 to 1963. In1963, in the sumrner, 1was invited to the Centrefor Advanced Study of the Behaviour Sciences,in Palo Alto, California, and spent a whole yearwriting it ali up. 1 had done the data analysis and1 needed a year to write it ali up. Then, in thesummer of 64, the first few people that were c~1lled sociolinguists were brought together at tneSummer Linguistic Institute. The Linguistic Society of America runs this Summer LinguisticInstitute every summer and brings together graduate students and professors of Linguistics fromali over the country , from ali over the world,maybe a thousand people, who spend the summer together taking courses, living together, talking, planning. That summer of 1964, immediately after the year that 1 spent at the Centre forAdvanced Study writing up my project, 1was invited to come to the Linguistic Institute , togetherwith about ten other people who has an interestin Sociolinguistics, to spend the summer formuJating what Sociolinguistics was, what were thevarious topics that constitute it, how could we getit into more universities throughout the country,what kinds of conferences, books, courses ... So,1would say it ali started, in a very focused way,after 1958, when 1 carne to the University ofPennsylvania and started to plan those graduatecourses. 1thing mine was the first graduate course in Sociology of Language in the States. lt wasin the spring semestre of 1959-60 academic year.1 remember people telling me that the word Sociolinguistics was too long and no one would beable to read a strange word like that. 1had initially wanted to use the word because it was on themodel of Psycholinguistics, which was already anestablished word, an area of specialization. However, to avoid difficulties 1 used Sociology ofLanguage instead. Since then 1have usually stayed with that term in order to stress that my approach is a little bit different than the usual sociolinguistic focus. So, starting with that 59-60 course, and funded by the research project, 1went toYeshiva University to conduct the research project. This was formulated at the University ofPennsylvania but it was begun and completed atYeshiva University. 1went to Yeshiva in 1960. 1worked on the project from 60 to 63, then 63 to64 at the Centre for Advanced Study, then the
95
summer of 64 at the Linguistic Institute. Thatconcentrated period of about four years reallylaunches me in Sociology of Language. But, in asense, that's only a very formal response-that'sthe obvious level, the surface leve!. Before thattime 1 had been teaching Social Psychology asSociology of Language. Even before that time 1had wanted to do my dissertation on what youwould now say is a sociolinguistic topic, but myprofessors had never heard of that field. My major professor told me in a very fatherly way: «Joshua, you get your doctorate first and then youcan do whatever you like». So, 1did a more traditional Social Psychology doctorate on NegativeStereotypes. During the time 1 was in graduateschool -1 went to Columbia University- andduring my graduate shool years, 1won a prize. 1won first prize. 1 carne to New York in 48 andmaybe in 49 or 501 won a first prize awarded by theYiddish Scientific Institute. Every year theywould award a prize for the best piece of graduate student research on sorne topic related to Yiddish. 1won that first prize for a study called Bilingualism in a Yiddish School, trying to relate thedegree of bilingualism -which really meant thedegree of Yiddish, because everybody spoke English equally well-to other characteristics of thechildren --characteristícs of their family, characteristics of their tnterest- in order to be able tosee what were the differences between the children who spoke more Yiddish and those whospoke less among ali the pupils in the same Yiddish Ikastola. That takes the story back from1958 almost back to 1948 if you are looking forbeginnings. It's a question of how far back youwant to Jook for my beginning in Sociolinguistics, because 1 can find the very beginning in myhome, as a child with my parents. lt depends onwhether you want the beginning ata professionallevel or just the beginning of my interest in thisarea of concern, because 1was brought up in ahome where we discussed sociology of Janguageevery day. The parents and the children discussed sociology of language at every meal and itwas always in connection with Yiddish -whichfamilies were speaking Yiddish, which familieswere not or how you could get more families todo that. My parents were 24 hour-a-day languageactivists. You must have such people here. Theylive , they eat, they sleep and ali the time their lifeis devoted to their Janguage interests. These arerelated to the concept of what the people shouldbe like and what the national life should be like.My parents were Yiddish a:ctivists -they werebuilding Yiddish schools, children's camps, helping Yiddish authors, publishing and sellingtheir books for thern, helping Yiddish theatrescome to Philadelphia, trying to introduce Yiddish into colleges, universities, in the city ... Thatwas the intelectual, cultural climate of the homethroughout my growing up. 1spoke only Yiddishwith then and my sister .'Ali this must have had
96
sorne effect. My sister became a Yiddish poetess,published man y books of Yiddish poetry, wonprizes ... I married a Yiddish teacher. Our children and grandchildren are Yiddish speaking.So, it really depends on where you want to startthe story. You can push it back as far as you like.
Z: Could you tell us about your present interests? We know that you are interested in ethnography.
JF: Actually I do sorne ethnography in almos!every study that I do. Ethnography is the detailed and unobtrusive observation of daily lives.It's harder to quantify and it may be more intuitive, i.e. based on fundamentally intuitive understandings and interpretations. In fact, it can bemade pretty objective by keeping out of the wayand, over and over again, observing the samepeople over a long period of time, so that theyget accustomed to you and they are no longeraware of your pressence and no longer think theyare being observed. I try to do a little bit of thattype of research in every major proyect. TheLanguage Loyalty (1958) book has an ethnography oftwo communities, two different Ukrainian communities in Pennsylvania --<me being acoa! mining town and the other a factory town.Just by observation I tried to determine whatwere the circumstances when people reacted oneway or another, how people understood theirtasks and how they reacted to them. I also havesorne ethnography in Bilingualism in the Barrio(1972). It has an ethnography chapter trying todescribe life in the Barrio and also what peoplethink about Spanish and their attitudes-towardsthe use of it. Even in one of my most recen!books, The Rise and Fall of the Ethnic Revival(1985), there's also an ethnography of fourschools. I've tried to do sorne ethnography inevery study, but I'm not married to it. It's not either my favourite method nor, certainly, my soleone. I usually work on a much more quantifiableanalysis of data collected from much larger samples of people than you could study in ethnography. Ethnography requires a small community-a school, a neighbourhood-e-, whereas I usually do large samples studies. I think it's the resultof my initial training in psychology. I teach Research Methodology, Measurement and Measurement Theory. I've been able to bring that frompsychology into my sociolinguistic work. It maybe that I will always do sorne ethnography in anyfuture studies that I undertake, but I don't essentially do ethnography alone. Currently I'm working on two things. I'm finishing a manuscriptthat has taken me many years, close to eightyears by now, which is more a social history, a social history anda biography. Asan undergrduatestudent I was a history major. I only became apsychology major as a graduate student. Mywork is in sociology of language and I've tried to
Joshua Fishman
combine ali these things, history and the psychological stress on methodology, on quantification,and my interest in language and society. I'mdoing a social history of the leader of a languagemovement. I think the leaders of these rnovements -which exist ali over the world- havenot been studied enóugh and we don't understand sufficiently their dynamics and to what extent language is central or secondary in their total programme, how that changes over time, howthey themselves change over time, in terms ofthe centrality of language in their efforts. So, I'mworking on such a social history, the social biography of an individual in a historical context.The title of it tentatively is Personality, ideologyand society(*). The other project that I'mjust beginning -indeed, I'm justa year into it- has todo with Spanish in the United States. lt's actuallya study of printed Spanish in the States. The United Sta tes is the only country where there are rnajor Hispanic populations drawn from very different points of origin. Cuban Americans, Puertorricans and Mexican Americans meet in the States in very large numbers as they meet nowhereelse in the world-very large concentrations, totalling about 18 million people. Together withsorne colleagues and sorne students I'm studyingthe Spanish of these three different clusters ofHispanics in terms of their press -from the verypopular daily press to the intelectual journals-in order to see whether because of their co-presence in one country, ali of them exposed heavilyto English, their Spanish -which ininally hadstrong regional differences-- is becoming moreuniform, i.e. whether a new North AmericanSpanish is developing and whether the influenceof English is becoming progressively stronger.We are comparing their press in the USA withtheir press back home. We are reading the Cuban press in Cuba and the Cuban American pressin the States; the Puertorrican press in PuertoRico and the Puertorrican American press in theStates; the Mexican press in Mexico and de Mexican American press in the United States. Weare also looking at lexical innovations, the possíble loss of regional characteristics, grammaticalchanges, etc. For this purpose we have to readmillions and millions of lines of Spanish and analyse them. The study will be a highly quantitativeone, with a large corpus. We are also trying tofind out about the writers of the material in thepress, because we are trying to analyse not justthe news service copy that the Spanish presstranslates from the English in the States. We arealso interested in editorials. We are analysing thetotal content of the press -the signed articles,the various genres-- to determine whether theSpanish of advertising is becoming more similarto the Spanish of the editorials, the Spanish ofthe signed articles. In that study I don't think the-
• Since published (1987).
Elkarrizketa
re will ve any ethnography. So, although I'm interested in ethnography as an additionai researchmethod, as another research method, I'rn notan ethnographer per se. I know sorne people thatonly do ethnography bccause it's the only thingthey're comfortable with, the only thing they believe in. I think ethnography is a very powerfultool, but it shouldn't be the only one in the sociolinguist's bag.
Z: In your life you've been commissioned bydifferent institutions and governments where minority /anguages are spoken. Could you tell usabout that?
JF: I've worked for many years in various places; sometimes for governments, sometimes onmy own choice with the support of foundations.I've worked in Flanders and in Friesland, whichis a section of Holland. I've worked in Israel, inIndonesia and in India. That's about half a dozenor more different contexts. Sorne of them in Europe and sorne of them in South East Asia. Apartfrom that, I keep travelling as often as I can. I'vebeen around the world severa! times. I'm alwaystrying to visit new places in arder to get first handexperience. In sorne countries it's better to talkto the local scholars than toread what they write,because they may not write what they want. Ingeneral, it's better to be there than toread aboutthem from a distance. Except for the SovietUnion, that has banned my entry three times,I've tried to be almost everywhere and to keepcoming back to be able to see change. !'ve triedto develop good personal contacts. I have goodpersonal contacts in the Soviet Union too, indeed, with scholars everywhere. Both in thejournals that 1edit and in the books that I help toget published and the book series that I edit, I tryto keep encouraging people ali over the worldbecause, by doing that, that helps me know moreabout comparable situations. In addition to considering, let's say, neighbourhoods ar individuals as units of study, as a sociologically oriented social psychologist I also like to think ofcountries ar regions as units of study. Anotherstudy I'm doing right now, it's nota book, so Ididn't mention it befare, involves a return to aquestion that I asked early in my career: «Whatis the difference between monolingual and rnultilingual, linguistically homogeneous and linguistically heterogeneous countries?» 1 studied thatinitially in 1964, but now I've returned to thatand I'm studying it again on the basis of handbooks, work handbooks that the United Nationsand other agencies have prepared to give information about other nations in the world, including the linguistically homogeneous. That's justa reflection on my effort to understand ali partsof the world. If 1 can visit them personally, Idothat; if not, 1read everything I can about ali partsof the world. 1 have a very large country file at
97
home. Unfortunately, there is still very little inEnglish about the Basque Country. Fortunately,I read Spanish freely.
Z: Language is a universal cause of concernwherever a particular language is spoken. Whydoes /anguage give rise to so strong feelings?
JF: Language is related to culture in threeways. Indexically via the names ar nouns for thefacts and ali the behaviours of which the cultureis aware. So, to begin with there is an indexicalrelationship. Language is related to culture because it is itself a very large part of the culturethat it portrays, because the /anguage is a/so theculture. For example, the greetings, the prayers,the laws, the philosophy are in the language, youcannot separate them from the language. Thelanguage is the culture to a large extent. Manyaspects of every culture are in its associated language, so the culture and the language are oneand the same in many areas. The third link is thatlanguage is symbolic of a culture, it stands for theassociated culture. Frequently it's the latter linkthat people are aware of. They forget about theother two, which are extremely important, particularly the second. Language is the majar symbol system that human beings have. They havemathematical syrnbols , chemical symbols, dresssymbols -for example, the cap at the top of myhead. But language is the most all-encompassingsymbol system that we have and, therefore, it'sthe most obvious symbol system to stand for thewhole culture- ali of its values, ali of its traditions, ali of its history, ali of its loyalties, ali of itssuffering, ali of its inspirations... Languagestands for that beca use it is after ali a symbol system. lt represents something outside of itself.There is nothing holy about the words, but thewords themselves stand for or symbolize holythings, things considered worth living and dyingfor.
Z: What does /anguage planning mean andwhat is it useful far?
JF: Language planning is a means of solvinglanguage problems through concerted, organized, focused, authoritative action. It's the authorities, since they dispose of resources, of funds,of manpower, and of attention and of decisionswith respect to priorities, who may come to apoint where they devote sorne of this to language--sorne of the money, sorñe of the control ofmanpower, sorne of the decision making withrespect to priorities- because there is a language problem. So, depending on the requirements,the authorities decide that the problem is at oneleve! ar another. Either the problem is becausethe Ianguage is very weak, as in Ireland, andneeds sorne immediate attention because it maycease to exist altogether.Ior they decide that it is
98
now blossoming out, it is developing and its existence is assured, but it should undertake sorneexpansion of functions, at least into the middler~nge -the middle range of education, of work,of governmental operation- or, here comes atime when authorities may decide that a language is not only safe and not only established in amiddle range, but that it can now exist virtuallyas the only language for even the highest range ofactivity. So, on the one hand, at the beginningthe language may be very weak and a rival language may be very strong in society. The threatened language -we call that the marked language- occupies very little of the total communication space, the total life space of the community,because another language is so strong. Jumpingali the way through to the last stage, we maycome to a stage where-the marked language isnow very strong, occupies almos! the total lifespace and any other language that was there initially is now itself controlled and very weak, restricted to very few functions, usually to intergroup functions. So, what was initially the majorlanguage may ultimately become a minor language because the speech community is nowusing it only for intergroup communication (forcommunication with the outside) and every society has very little communication with the outside relative to its communication with the inside. So, language planning can be undertaken atany one of these three stages. In the United States there's a lot of language planning with respectto English, but there is also a good bit of language planning involving how we can improve theforeign language mastery among the Americanpopulation or how we can help maintain a littlebit of the minority languages- because manypeople seem to want a little bit to be done onbehalf of the minority languages. There is larguage planning even in the strongest societies,that are fully secure economically and politically.On the other hand, most of the language planning around the world comes to be concentratedon either the first or the second major stage thatI mentioned above, i.e. it has to do with the lateexpansion of functions when another surrounding language has previously occupied mostfunctions for much of the time, i.e. with a late expansion of functions for a marked language, andalso language planning with respect to languagemaintenance for languages which have been longoverlooked and neglected and are very much ataweak stage and for one reason or another theauthorities have turned sorne attention to them.
Z: When it comes to language planning we haveto understand the dynamics between two systems.On the one hand, the dynamics between statusand corpus planning; on the other hand, the dynamies of the language system vis-a-vis society's dynamics in the economy and elsewhere.
Joshua Fishman
JF: When you are planning the status of a language you are interacting with social life itself,whereas when you are planning the corpus of thelanguage you are just interacting with the dictionary, so to speak, and that's a lot easier than interacting with society itself. If you want to implement that dictionary, then you have to start interacting with society itself. So, you always getback to a status planning, even when you do corpus planning, because no one plans a corpus forits own sake alone. He wants to have that corpusimplemented to foster its use, and that leadsback to society right away and to how you influence society, Whether you are interested ininfluencing society to use the language or you areinterested in influencing the society to use theparticular corpus which has just been preparedfor administrative puposes, for scientific purposes, you always have to influence society. That'swhat makes status planning the motor, the dynamic force behind all language planning.This status planning has to be carefully aligned
with the stage at which the language is, with theactual, realistic analysis of the problems that thelanguage faces in different speech communities,in different speech networks. Every speech community has a lot of different networks and thosenetworks won't ali be at the same stage. Sorneare using the language and sorne are not using it.Sorne are using the language with a consciousness of it, sorne are using it quite unconsciously,because they don't know any other language andbeca use they are never in contact with other people. So, planning status planning in such a way asto be really attuned to the problem as it exists,the problems of language that exist in differentnetworks of society, is very difficult beca use society itself is not ali of one piece of cloth. lt's quite diversified. But in general one has to find where the major problem is, because to handle justthe minor problems and overlook the major onesis like going to the zoo and just looking at thefleas but not seeing the elephants. If the majorproblem for the bulk of society is that they don'tknow the language, to pay extreme attention toproblems which are of the middle range or of theupper range is to miss what is the chief problemof the speech community. In general, I would saythat it takes a lot of courage to recognize the problem as it really exists, because it is a lot easier tocope with or to concentrate one's attention onvery organized institutions which are definitelylocated at one place or another or doing onething or another and turning ali one's attentionto them-because you can find them. That's merely doing language planning of convenience.One can easily find the schools, they are undercentral administration, so it's easier to work withthem. One can easily find the mass media, theyare usually under central administration, andyou can work with them. But it's a lot harder tofind out how to influence the family, beca use it's
Elkarrizketa
not ali in one place; how to influence the worksphere, how to influence youth culture, thosewhich are called the primary domains -home,neighbourhood, work sphere- because they areso important, so determining in terms of mothertangue transmission. Then, there is another important issue. Language planning has to decidewhether it is interested in mother tangue transmission, transmission of the language as a firstlanguage, or whether it would be perfectly willing to accept second language transmission,whereby the marked language will merely be thesecond language, generation after generation.That's also difficult to arrange, but it is possiblefor languages to live for ever as second languages. If one sets aside the goal of complete domination of society by the marked language, thenthat means that both the marked languagewhich was initially, you remenber, the threatened language, the language 'that has been overlooked- and the larger language that surroundsit will have to coexist in that society and, therefore, language planning can work at the means ofthat coexistence. 1think justas it is too bad not togo as far as you can with language planning andto settle for less than you could have settled for,in terms of the institutional dominance of themarked language in ali the institutions of society,so it is a majar mistake not to settle for half thepie when the whole pie is simply impossible andit will only mean a disappointment, a misspending of funds, and possibly even a defeat of majar proportion to seek to capture the field. So,you see, it is ali a very difficult combination of social planning, culture planning, language planning and identity planning. Language plannersalways have to remember that they are only partof the whole story, beca use as long as the plan isbeing undertaken is not just the status of the language in society that is being manipulated or influenced, it is the society itself. Therefore, otherplanners, other social planners, usually have tobe involved as well for successful language planning to occur.
Z: Political decisions are necessary to normalize a language, aren't they? But are they in themselves able to carry out the change? What otherelements ar measures are necessary to make thedesired change [easible?
JF: Well, there are always political decisions,even though the government may not be involved. There are many languages around the worldthat don't have governments -they are not government regulated- and there are many manymore languages than there are governments.There are many language communities that areself governing in a sense. Their authorities aretheir poets, or their religious leaders, their traditional leaders. Therefore, ifyou extend the definition of politics or political leadership to ali
99
sorts of authorities culturally recognized, thenyou have to grant that politics is part of ali language planning. The majar problem that politicians face is the mature recognition of what ispossible and what is impossible. Politics has beencalled the art of the possible, i.e. the recognitionof what ispossible and being able to present it asthat which is desirable. And , of course, peoplediffer in that connection. It's nota clear case as towhat is possible. Therefore, there will be different programmes of social change that are cornpeting with each other. In ali societies there aredifferent definitions of how much social changeis possible and what kind of direction of changewould be desirable. That's the first thing that theauthorities have to work out amongst thernselves, befare language planning is engaged in, because without consensus in the political area language planning tends to fly off in ali directions,doing a little bit here, doing a little bit there and,in general, being ineffective everywhcre, primarily because the power base in society has not decided exactly what the problem is and has notagreed on the priorities to be assigned to it. So,the more there is disensus or lack of consensusamong the political authorities, the less languageplanning can accomplish. The more the authorities control or regula te society, i.e. the more theyengage in culture planning, that is, what booksmay be published, and what programmes may beviewed, the more they regulate the economy, themore they regulate the lives of people in an authoritative fashion, the more they can solve thelanguage problem that they are faced with quickly. So, when the authorities themselves are inaccord with each other and the more they controlother areas of social sife, the more the solutionthey are pursuing in language planning can quickly come to grips with the problem and, so tospeak, salve the problem. There are sorne countries, not technologically very advanced, thathave quickly solved their language problem because of this fact: the authorities were fully incontrol of society to define the problem andwork at it without trivializing it across a broadrange of unnecessary or impossible goals. On theother hand, there are many advanced countrieswhere authority has to be shared much more widely, where there are many different opinionswhich cannot be squelched or repressed. Therefore, whatever language planning is engaged ithas to be engaged in in such a way as to pleaseeverybody a little bit. On the other hand, different parts of the authority structure have different definitions of the problem and, in general, asociety may be developing very slowly in terms ofchange, in terms of economic change, in terms ofeducational change; therefore, it becomes impossible to expect language change or languageplanning to succeed quickly. So, wherever weturn we bump into the authority structure thathas to make the decisions, that perhaps has to
100
share the decisions, has to justify its operations insorne societies. So, you are never in a politicalcontext when you engage just in language planning, just as you are never in a political contextwherf you engage only in economic planning oronly in educational planning when you are inmost modern societies.
Z: In many minority language situations the efforts to normalize the language are seeminglybound to come across again and again resistanceto change, i.e. that type of social conflict that givesway sometimes to language war. Sometimes thatseems unavoidable. Why is that so and how couldwe possibly overcome or get around the problemand encourage people to avoid it?
JF: First we must decide what level of conflictwe are speaking about, since there is always conflict in any society. Society itself ·is conflictive.Basque society, even if it were fully basquised,would still be full of conflic anyway. Spanish society, where everyone speaks Spanish, is full ofconflict too. Language conflict is merely an expression of social change. The changing status ofa language also means a 'change in personal status, i.e. a change of status of individuals which isaffected by change of status in the language. Theresistance to change is dueto the fact that peopledon't want their status changed. They are already elites. If this country is basquised, therewould be a change in elites. There are alreadyelites, there are people with good jobs, peoplewith authority, people in power who would haveto share it and to lose it because their power hasbeen achieved through Spanish, is based uponSpanish , their whole lifestyle is Spanish, theiridentity is Spanish, their self respect is based onthe use of Spanish in very profficient ways. Accordingly, the replacement of one of the elites byanother has to elicit resistance , and that resistance has to be the cause of conflict. A high level ofconflict is not absolutely necessary if the problemis defined at a lower level. For example, if youdefine the current problem of Basque as the problem of continuation of Basque in the countryside, where the majority of people are Basquespeaking, and forget about the rest of the country saying «the countryside is now the heartlandof the Basque language, that's where it is safest;let's undertake policies which will"continue ithere, which will safeguard it there», you minimize conflict immediately. On the other hand, ifyou want to go beyond that or just to the middlerange and insist that Basque be used in the middle institutions, middle level work, aiming at asociety where people who know it would useBasque at home and in their middle level interactions with institutions and would use Spanish forcontact with the rest of Spain and for their interactions with the highest levels of institutions,highest leve/ work, you would also eliminate con-
Joshua Fishman
flict. Conflict is a result of the fact that you areyourself planning for conflict. The more you planfor the higher level, the more you must replaceelites and the more you must influence them toaccept changes in their statuses, which elites never do willingly. The more you strive to implement Basque, the more you must change lots ofpeople, influence lots of people to change theirlives. It may be true that ordinary people are infavour of Basque, but they always mean someone else, they mean in general; they rarely want tochange their own lives, to retrain themselves, tointerrupt their usual relationship with their family or with their friends and with their colleagues.The more you aim at that, the more you have toexpect conflict. After ali you are undertakingthat kind of language planning and you can't expect people to go along with that, because theyalready have an established status in life, particularly those who are elites, those who are educated, those who are in power, those who are inhigher positions, those who are wealthier, thosewho have more to lose by having to face competition from a new elite, a new elite that was trainedin Basque to do ali these things that were neverdone in Basque before.Those who are already at an older age would
never become as good at Basqueas the new oneswho are coming along trained in Basque. Threrefore, the more you try to displace an already entrenched power structure, the more you are engaged in a kind of language planning that causesconflict. It doesn't merely elicit resistance; it causes conflict. Conflict is its way of moving ahead.There's no painless operation. There's no operation without blood. If you try to displace an established elite, you must expect conflict, you mustexpect the possibility of losing, you must expectthe possibility of biting off more that you canchew; you must expect the possibility that thosewho are, so to speak, the advanced guard of thenew movement would lose, anda Basque favouring society would have to withdraw to a plannedposition that is safer and less conflictive, to a position where it's under its own control. So, 1thinkthe issue of conflict has to be looked at from twopoints of wiew: from the point of wiew of themarked language and from the point of view ofthe unmarked language. Each of then has its eliteand its vested interests. It's the clash betweenthese vested interests that we call conflict.
Z: To finish with, should we say then that together with language planning we should carry out aculture and identity planning as well?
JF: Language planning is inevitably cultureplanning and identity planning. Of course culture planning exists outside the language area tooand identity planning also exists out of languageplanning. You have to remember there are religious authorities that are trying to influence cul-
Elkarrizketa
ture and identity. There are political authoritieswith political ideologies that are trying to influence culture and identity. So, culture andidentity are not just dependen! on language planning. But language planning, since language issymbolic of the entire culture and indeed is itselfa good part of the culture, is inevitably cultureand identity planning. If you change the statusand corpus of the language, you are necessarilychanging the culture, and identity is always partially psychological, partially sociological andpartially cultural. There are ali these aspects ofidentity. Therefore, as you change society andculture through language planning and other forces, you necessarily are changing identity. Whatit means to be Basque becomes something different. What it means to be Basque speaking becomes something different. If Basque is spokenonly in rural areas in connection with rural pursuits, as opposed to when Basque is spoken at alilevels of science and industry, that's a differentculture anda different identity. Those who speakBasque look at themselves differently, think ofthemselves differently, they begin to think ofthemselves in terms of comparability with major
101
modern powers, which is a different type of identity. So, that's importan! to recognize. Whenyou're doing status planning, even when you aredoing corpus planning, you are interacting withsocial planning, with culture planning, with identity planning. lt's just inevitable. Part of ouridentity is our recognition of ourselves as aspeaker of a certain language, and language movements try to make that conscious. They consciously point to that. In fact, language movements try to point to the non-speakers of a certain language as being defficient in sorne respect,as having lost a crucial aspee! of their national essence, of having lost a crucial aspee! of theiridentity. Readopting the language, remastering,relearning, acquiring the language is consciouslymade part of identity formation. We do that ourselves. Language planners do that themselves.They aim at identity. So, you have to realize thatlanguage planning is not for the purpose of language. Language becomes an ingredient in amuch bigger process. Language planning isengaged in in order to control society, in order tochange the culture.