|
湘西历史文化名村语言景观调查研究——以捞车村为例
|
Abstract:
历史文化名村语言景观的标准化和规范化建设是推动乡村旅游、振兴乡村经济的重要路径。本研究以湘西国家级历史文化名村——捞车村为个案,考察该村语言景观的语言特征,并调查了不同语言群体对该村语言景观的态度。研究发现,该村的语言景观具有多语性质,在语种数量、语码选择、语码布局和置放场所上具有独特的特征。社会各群体对汉语的认同度最高;土家语是当地的民族语言,具有一定的认同度;英语、韩语等则体现了该村着力打造具有一定国际化特征的乡村旅游目标。文章还基于该村语言景观存在的问题,提出了相应的规范化和标准化建设的建议。从社会符号学的视角出发,本文剖析了捞车村多语言社会结构中各种语言间的相互关系及其在社会中的地位,旨在提升民族语言和文化的社会地位,增强其价值,并促进民族语言和文化的传承与发展。
The standardization and normalization of language landscape in historical and cultural villages is vital for promoting rural tourism and revitalizing the rural economy. This study takes Laoche Village, a national historical and cultural village in western Hunan, as a case study, examines the linguistic features of the village’s language landscape, and investigates the attitudes of different language groups toward the village’s language landscape. It is found that the language landscape of the village is multilingual in nature, with unique features in the number of languages, the choice of codes, the layout of codes and the places where they are placed. Chinese has the highest recognition among all social groups, while Tujia language is a local national language, which has a certain degree of identity, and English and Korean highlight the village’s aim for rural tourism with international characteristics. The article also puts forward corresponding suggestions for standardization and standardization construction based on the problems of the village’s linguistic landscape. From the perspective of social semiotics, this article analyzes the interrelationships between various languages in the multilingual social structure of the Laoche Village and their status in society, aiming to enhance the social status of national languages and cultures, strengthen their value, and promote the inheritance and development of national languages and cultures.
[1] | Landry, R. and Bourhis, R.Y. (1997) Linguistic Landscape and Ethnolinguistic Vitality: An Empirical Study. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 16, 23-49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x970161002 |
[2] | Cenoz, J. and Gorter, D. (2006) Linguistic Landscape and Minority Languages. International Journal of Multilingualism, 3, 67-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790710608668386 |
[3] | Ben-Rafael, E., Shohamy, E., Hasan Amara, M. and Trumper-Hecht, N. (2006) Linguistic Landscape as Symbolic Construction of the Public Space: The Case of Israel. International Journal of Multilingualism, 3, 7-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790710608668383 |
[4] | Gorter, D. (2005) Review of Itagi & Singh (2002): Linguistic Landscaping in India, with Particular Reference to the New States. Language Problems and Language Planning, 29, 199-201. https://doi.org/10.1075/lplp.29.2.11gor |
[5] | Halliday, M.A.K. (1978) Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. Edward. |
[6] | 单菲菲, 刘承宇. 民族旅游村寨语言景观调查研究——基于社会符号学与文化资本理论视角[J]. 广西民族研究, 2016(6): 153-161. |
[7] | Scollon, R. and Scollon, S.W. (2003) Discourses in Place: Language in the Material World. Routledge. |