Elkarrizketa

Elkarrizketa 85

Joshua Fishman

Joshua Fishman iparramerikarra so­ziolinguistikaren munduan jakitun ospe­tsuenetarikoa da eta Yeshiva Unibertsita­teko irakasleaNew York-en. Bere zuzen­daritzapean «Contributions to the Socio­logy of Language» izeneko liburu-sailaargitaratzen da. Hirurehun artikulutikgorapublikatu ditu etahizkuntza minori­zatuak dauden leku askotan lan egin du,erakunde etagobernuek 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. Rara 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 nuen. Klasearen izena Giza

GALDERA.- Noiz eta nola hasi zi­nen Soziolinguistikaren arloan lan egi­ten? Eta zein izan dira zure laneko bizitzaluzearen mugarri nagusiak?

ERANTZUNA.- Hasi 1960.ean ha­si nintzeI1neure 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-rnailan 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) Centerfor Advanced Studyof the Behavior Sciences delako erakun­deak konbidatu ninduen. Han urtebeteiragan nuen aurkitu nuen guztia idazten.Datuen analisia egina neukan, eta urte­bete behar nuen den a 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 for 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 Unibertsitate­ra 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 farAdvanced Study of theBehavior 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 bati 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. Yiddisli 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 dira, 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 etnografía in­teresatzenzaizula.E.- Egia esateko, ia ikerlan guztie­

tan etnografía pixka bat sartzen dut. Et­nografía eguneroko bizitzaren miaketazehatza da. Zaila da kuantifíkatzen,

88

nahiko intuitiboa bait da. Batez ere,ulermen eta interpretapen intuitiboetanoinarritzen da. Objektiba daiteke, halaere, alde batera 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 Iiburuak, 1958.eanagertu zenak, bi gizatalderen etnografíabat dauka. Gizataldeak Pennsylvania-kobi komunitate ukraniar ziren; bata,ikatz-meatzaritzatik bizizen; bestea, hiriindustriala zen.Miaketaren bitartez, jendearen por­

taeraren zergatiak determinatzen saiatunintzen: jendeak bere eginbeharrak nolaulertzen zituen eta zer nolako erreak­zioak zituen. Bilingualism in the Barrio,1972.eko liburuan ere, etnografía piskabat egin nuen. Kapitulu oso bat Barrio­-ka bizitzaren deskribapena da; hanazaltzen dut baita ere jendeak elebitasu­nari, espainierari eta espainieraren era­bilerari buruz uste duena. The Rise andthe Fa!! of the Ethnic Reviva! (1985),neure liburu berrienean ere, lau eskola­tako etnografía 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 ikerketarenmetodología, neurkuntza eta neurkuntzteoria irakasten ditut. Hau guztiau Psiko­logiatik hartu dut neure soziolinguisti­kazko lanerako. Agian egingo ditudanikerlanetan ere etnografía apur bat sar­tuko dut beti, baina nik ez dut berezikietnografía egiten.Oraingoan bi lanetan ari naiz. Alde

batetik, orain dela ia zortzi urte hasinuen idazki bat bukatzen ari naiz. Horisozialhistoria eta biografiazkolan 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,ldeology and Society da.Aipatu beste projektua oraintxe bas­

ten 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, 18miloi gutxi gora­behera.

Beste lankide eta ikasleekin hatera,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 ditutetnografía soilik egiten duten pertsonak.Hauek etnografía egiten dute, sinistenduten gauza bakarra delako, edo etno­grafía erosoa aurkitzen dutelako. Nikneuk uste dut etnografía 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 lan 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. Rara joan baldin banai­teke, hara noa; bestela, ahalik etagehien irakurtzen dut munduko lekugiiztiei 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. Adibidez, agurrak, otoitzak, legeak,filosofía, hizkuntzan <laude. Ezin ditza­kezu kulturatik bereiztu. Neurri haundibatean hizkuntza kultura da. Kulturarenaspektu asko hizkuntzari loturik daude.

90

Gauza askotarako kultura eta hizkuntzagauza bera dira. 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 dira, baina oso ga­rrantzitsuak dira 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. Ezdago ezer 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 dirahizkuntzarako dima, 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 gobemuangutxienez 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 bame-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. A/de 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. Rain 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 litzateke. 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 lan egin behar dute.

G.-Erabaki politikoak beharrezkoakdira hizkuntza bat normaltzeko, ezta?Baina erabaki hauek behar den aldaketaeraginal dezakete?Horrezgain, zein bes-

92

te elementu edo neurri behar dugu nahiditugun aldaketak eragiteko?

E.- Ba, badira beti erabaki politi­koak, gobernuari ez badagozkio ere.Gure mundu honetan hizkuntza auni­tzek ez dute gobernurik, ez dira gobernubatek arautuak. Gobernuak baino askozhizkuntza gehiago daude munduan. 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 dauden 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 daude 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

JoshuaFishman

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, problemamugatzekoeta horrekin lan egiteko ez zituzten hel­buru eta aukera ezberdinek ematen di­tuzten zailtasunak.Herri aurreratu askotan, alderantziz,

boterea oso hedatua <lago,iritzi desber­din asko daude, 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 horre­/a 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 daga 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 harrernanak 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.

Onda oinarritutako botere-egiturabat 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 ando fin­katutako elite bat mugitzean gatazkasortuko duzu. Orduan, zera kontsidera­tu behar duzu: 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 rnarkatuarenikuspegitik eta hizkuntza ez-markatua­ren ikuspegitik. Hizkuntza bakoitzakbere elite eta interesak ditu, eta intereshoriek elkar jotzeari gatazka deitzendiogu.

G.- Azkenik, zure ustez, hizkuntzplangintzarekin hatera, kultur eta norta­sun-plangintza ere egin beharko genuke?

E.- Hizkuntz plangintza, nahitaez,kultur eta nortasun-plangintza da. Jaki­na, badago kultur eta nortasun-plangin­tza hizkuntz plangintzaz 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 ideologiapolitikoaren 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. Euskotarraiza­teak 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 thefie/d 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 1958 asan 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, I was teaching Sociology of Lan­guage, except that it was listed in the catalog asSocial 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, Socio/ogy of Lan­guage. I taught them at the graduate level, whe­reas previously I had taught Social Psychology atthe under graduate leve!. So, I had to teach themata higher leve! 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 dira. 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.

Itzultzailea: 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 .all the dimensions that I couldthink of. On the strength of such a study I couldthen have a basis mi 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 States-no one hadstudied thatissue be­fare. 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. I ran into a lot of trouble with the Bu­reau, because they had never taken languagethat seriously. It wasn't easy to convince themthat language deserved severa! 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 tangue question. I was trying to convin­ce them that they should ask mother tangue andsevera! subsequent questions to clarify what hadhappened to the language claimed as mothertangue, since it was a mother tangue during

Elkarrizketa

childhood. Although the Bureau essentially re­jected my recommendation, they did ask mothertongue again. Ali of my correspondence in theBureau, which was quite voluminous, was so­mehow passed on to another office of the Go­vernment. 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 like to do the kind of stu­dy that 1had been suggesting to the Bureau. Thatreally was the finger of God coming down andpointing at me. It gave me the opportunity to getstarted in sociology of language in a big way.That study was conducted from 1960 to 1963. In1963, in the summer, 1was invited to the Centrefor Advanced Study of the Behaviour Sciences,in Palo Alto, California, and spent a whole yearwriting it ali up. 1had done the data analysis and1 needed a year to write it ali up. Then, in thesummer of 64, the first few people that were C8

lled sociolinguists were brought together at theSummer Linguistic Institute. The Linguistic Society of America runs this Summer LinguisticInstitute every summer and brings together gra­duate students and professors ofLinguistics 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, imrnedia­tely 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 forrnu­lating 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,1 would 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 Sta tes. 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 toread a strange word like that. 1had initia­lly wanted to use the word because it was on themodel of Psycholinguistics, which was airead y anestablished word, an area of specialization. Ho­wever, to avoid difficulties 1 used Socio/ogy 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 ofLanguage. But, in asense, that's only a very formal response-that'sthe obvious leve!, the surface leve!. Before thattime 1 had been teaching Social Psychology asSociology of Language. Even befare 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 veryfatherlyway: «Jos­hua, you get your doctorate first and then youcan do whatever you like». So, 1did amore tradi­tional Social Psychology doctorate on NegativeStereotypes. During the time 1was in graduateschool -1 went to Columbia University- andduring my graduate shool years, 1 won a prize. 1won first prize. 1 carne to New York in 48 andmaybe in 49or 501won 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 ---characteristics of their family, charac­teristics of their interest- 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 look for my beginning in Sociolinguis­tics, because 1can find the very beginning in myhome, as a child with my parents. lt depends onwhether you want the beginning ata professionalleve! or just the beginning of my interest in thisarea of concern, because 1 was brought up in ahome where we discussed sociology of languageevery day. The parents and the children discus­sed sociology of language at every mea! 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 language interests. These arerelated to the concept of what the people shouldbe like and what the national life should be like.My parents were Yiddish activists -they werebuilding Yiddish schools, children's camps, hel­ping Yiddish authors, publishing and sellingtheir books for them, 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 mysister. Ali this must have had

96

sorne effect. My sister became a Yiddish poetess,published many 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 of two communities, two different Ukrai­nian communities in Pennsylvania ---one 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 recentbooks, The Rise and Fall of the Ethnic Reviva/(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 sarn­ples of people than you could study in ethnogra­phy. Ethnography requires a small community-a school, a neighbourhood-, 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 move­ments -which exist ali over the world- havenot been studied enough 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, ideo/ogyand society(*). The other project that I'mjust be­ginning -indeed, I'm just a year into it- has todo with Spanish in the United States. It's actuallya study of printed Spanish in the Sta tes. The Uni­ted States is the only country where there are ma­jor 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 journals­in order to see whether because of their co-pre­sence in one country, ali of them exposed heavilyto English, their Spanish -which initially 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 possi­ble 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 additional researchmethod, as another research method, I'm notan ethnographer per se. I know sorne people thatonly do ethnography because it's the only thingthey're comfortable with, the only thing they be­lieve in. I think ethnography is a very powerfultoo!, 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 languages 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, in "Indonesia 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 order 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. I've triedto develop good personal contacts. I have goodpersonal contacts in the Soviet Union too, in­deed, with scholars everywhere. Both in thejournals that I edit 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 or indivi­duals as units of study, as a sociologically orien­ted social psychologist I also like to think ofcountries or 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 mono lingual and multi­lingual, linguistically homogeneous and linguis­tically heterogeneous countries?» I 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 I can visit them personally, Idothat; if not, I read everything I can about ali partsof the world. I 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 language give rise to so strong feelings?

JF: Language is related to culture in threeways. lndexically via the names or 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 language 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 major sym­bol system that human beings have. They havemathematical symbols, 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. It 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 language 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, sorne 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! or another. Either the problem is becausethe language is very weak, as in Ireland, andneeds sorne immediate attention because it maycease to exist altogether, or 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 middlerange -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 Iittle 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 almost 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 majarlanguage may ultimately become a minar 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 oflanguage planningwith 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 majar stage that1mentioned 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 at aweak 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; 011 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 pupases, for scientific purpo­ses, you always have to influence society. That'swhat makes status planning the motor, the dyna­mic force behind ali 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 andbecause they are never in contact with other peo­ple. So, planning status planning in such a way asto be really attuned to the prob!em as it exists,the problems of language that exist in differentnetworks of society, is very difficult because so­ciety itself is not ali of one piece of cloth. It's qui­te diversified. But in general one has to find whe­re the majar problem is, because to handle justthe minar problems and overlook the majar onesis Iike going to the zoo and just looking at thefleas but not seeing the elephants. If the majarproblem 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 communi ty. In general, 1would saythat it takes a lot of courage to recognize the pro­blemas 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- beca use 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. I think 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, because 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: Política/ decisions are necessary to normali­ze a language, aren't they? But are they in them­selves able to carry out the change? What otherelements or measures are necessary to make thedesired change feasible?

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 all

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. Poli tics 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 ciear case as towhat is possible. Therefore, there will be diffe­rent programmes of social change that are com­peting with each other. In all 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 themsel­ves, 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 everywhere, prima­rily beca use 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 poli tical 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 regula te 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 ofthe 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 contextwhen you engage only in economic planning oronly in educational planning when you are inmost modero 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 thatgivesway sometimes to language war. Sometimes thatseems unavoidable. Why is that so and how couldwe possibly overcome or gel around the problemand encourage people to avoid it?

JF: First we must decide what leve! 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 meaos a change in personal sta­tus, i.e. a change of status of individuals which isaffected by change of status in the language. Tberesistance 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. Tbere 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 leve! 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 leve! work, aiming at asociety where people who know it would useBasque at home and in their middle leve! 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 elirninate 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. Tbe more you strive to imple­ment Basque, the more you must change lots ofpeople, influence lots of people to change theirlives. lt may be true that ordinary people are ÍÍ1favour of Basque, but they always mean someo­ne else, they mean in general; they rarelywant tochange their own lives, to retraía themselves, tointerrupt their usual relationship with their fami­ly or with their friends and with their colleagues.Tbe 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 theyairead y havean 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 befare.Tbose who are already at an older age would

never become as good at Basque as 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. lt doesn't merely elicit resistance; it cau­ses conflict. Conflict is its way of moving ahead.Tbere's no painless operation. There's no opera­tion without blood. Ifyou 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, I thinkthe 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 ofthen has its eliteand its vested interests. lt'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 dependent 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 ofiden­tity. 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 aspect of their national es­sence, of having lost a crucial aspect 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 is enga­ged in in order to control society, in order tochange the culture.