Journal of Language Situation and Language Service
JLSLS, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2025, pp.157-169.
Print ISSN: 3078-3755; Online ISSN: 3104-5065
Journal homepage: https://www.lslsjournal.com
DOI：Https://doi.org/10.64058/JLSLS.25.2.01
语言规划研究的范式演进与流派分野
——基于《剑桥》《牛津》《劳特利奇》三本权威手册的比较研究
方小兵（Fang Xiaobing）
摘要：语言规划作为应用语言学与公共政策交叉领域的核心议题，其研究范式在近十余年间经历了从“技术导向”到“批判反思”再到“政策落地”的显著转型。本文以2012年《剑桥语言政策手册》（Bernard Spolsky主编）、2018年《牛津语言政策与规划手册》（James W. Tollefson & Miguel Pérez-Milans主编）、2024年《劳特利奇语言政策与规划手册》（Michele Gazzola等主编）三本权威著作的目录体系与核心内容为分析对象，通过“核心主题—研究方法—话语体系”三维分析框架，系统梳理经典语言规划学派、批评语言政策学派与公共政策导向学派的理论分野与演进逻辑。研究发现：经典学派以“领域规划”为核心，构建“实践—信念—管理”的静态分析模型；批评学派以“权利与意识形态”为锚点，揭露语言政策背后的权力不平等；公共政策学派则聚焦“政策过程与效果评估”，推动语言规划向实证化、精细化的政策科学转型。三者共同构成语言规划研究“问题识别—批判解构—解决方案”的完整逻辑链，其演进轨迹反映了全球化背景下语言问题从“技术调节”到“社会公平”再到“治理效能”的关注焦点迁移。
关键词：语言政策与规划；学术手册；研究范式；流派演进
作者简介：方小兵，南京大学文学院教授，博士，中国语言战略研究中心副主任，研究方向：语言政策，国际中文教育，术语学。电邮：fangxb@nju.edu.cn。
Title: The Paradigm Evolution and School Differentiation in Language Planning Research: A Comparative Study based on Three Authoritative Handbooks
Abstract: The research paradigm of language planning has undergone a significant transformation over the past decade or so, shifting from “technology-oriented” to “critical reflection” and further to “policy implementation”. This paper takes the catalog systems and core contents of three authoritative works as the research objects: The Cambridge Handbook of Language Policy (edited by Bernard Spolsky, 2012), The Oxford Handbook of Language Policy and Planning (edited by James W. Tollefson & Miguel Pérez-Milans, 2018), and The Routledge Handbook of Language Policy and Planning (edited by Michele Gazzola et al., 2024). By adopting a three-dimensional analytical framework of “core themes—research methods—discourse systems”, it systematically sorts out the theoretical differences and evolutionary logic of the classical language planning school, the critical language policy school, and the public policy-oriented school. The study finds that: the classical school centers on "domain planning" and constructs a static analytical model of “practice—belief—management”; the critical school takes “power and ideology” as its anchor to expose the power inequality behind language policies; the public policy school focuses on “policy processes and effect evaluation” and promotes the transformation of language planning towards an empirical and refined policy science. The three schools form a complete logical chain of “problem identification—critical deconstruction—solution proposal”. Their evolutionary trajectory reflects the shift in the focus of attention on language issues from "technological adjustment" to "social equity" and further to "governance effectiveness" against the backdrop of globalization.
Keywords: LPP; academic handbook; research paradigm; school evolution
Author Biography:Fang Xiaobing, Ph.D., is a Professor at the School of Liberal Arts, Nanjing University, and serves as the Associate Director of the Chinese Language Strategy Research Center. His research interests includes language policy, international Chinese language education, and terminology. Email:fangxb@nju.edu.cn.
Received: 11 Oct 2025 / Revised: 15 Oct 2025 / Accepted: 20 Oct 2025 / Published online: 30 Dec 2025 / Print published: 30 Dec 2025.
DOWNLOAD PDF
