（專題）母語優先的臺灣本土語言復振教育規劃
作者:國立臺東大學華語文學系張學謙
卷期：65卷第1期
日期：2020年3月
頁碼：175-200
DOI：10.6209/JORIES.202003_65(1).0007
摘要：
華語挾其政治、經濟、傳播、教育等勢力，入侵本土語言的家庭領域，進而取代傳統本土語言在家庭和社區的地位與功能。本土語言教育實施多年，族群母語卻仍然有流失、轉向使用華語的現象。本土語言持續流失，有必要重新構想臺灣本土語言教育規劃，以邁向本土語言復振。過去的本土語言教育場域集中在學校，缺乏和家庭和社區結合，也欠缺語言復振的理論指導。本文主張本土語言復振需要建構母語優先的雙語政策，透過整合式的語言復振教育模式，規劃家庭、社區和學校的母語防護圈；運用語言活力模式，在意識啟發、學校教育、校外擴展及世代傳承四個復振階段中，進行發展能力、創造機會以及提升意願的工作。本土語言的世代相傳為語言復振的核心，學校為主之語言復振常忽略了家庭語言傳承的面向，因此，本文特別強調家長能夠自我培力的家庭語言政策模式，從語言的意識、管理及實踐等面向，規劃本土語言返家，達成母語的世代傳承。以母語優先、跨語言實踐為方法，將本土語言融入課程當中，使之成為教學語言，開創更為豐富多元的本土語言空間。
更正專區：
勘誤：母語優先的臺灣本土語言復振教育規劃
原刊載於《教育科學研究期刊》第65卷第1期之〈母語優先的臺灣本土語言復振教育規劃〉（Mother Tongues First: Planning Taiwanese Native Languages Education Policy for Language Revitalization）（https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.202003_65(1).0007），應作者要求期能更正第175頁第一段與第二段論述，經本刊編委會同意，修正如下：
二十一世紀是臺灣本土語言生存的關鍵年代（曹逢甫，1997；陳淑嬌，2007；黃宣範， 1993；葉高華，2017）。本土語言流失常被比喻為健康狀況不佳，需要就醫。語言流失的原因多端，其中獨尊華語的語言政策，對家庭、社區和學校的本土語言保存都有不利的影響。
家庭作為本土語言代代相傳的重要場所，在正式實行本土語言教育前，臺灣人多以家庭中使用母語，在外說華語的方式來保存他們的母語。這樣的母語傳承方式並未通過學校教育。母語不僅是家庭中的溝通工具，更是孩子的第一語言。然而，隨著愈來愈多的家長改用華語與孩子交流，本土語言便逐漸流失，母語也因此逐漸失傳，華語取而代之成為孩子的第一語言，原本的母語反變為第二語言。孩子不再學習母語，也就無法將其傳承給下一代，最終導致本土語言消亡。Fishman（1991, p. 83）曾針對此現象提出了「弱勢族人說強勢語」（Xmen via Yish）和「弱勢族人說弱勢母語」（Xmen via Xish）的概念，來解釋母語流失和母語保留的情況。考慮到家庭在保存母語方面的重要角色，臺灣的語言復振運動必須要從在家庭中「只說華語」造成母語流失，轉變為在家庭優先「使用母語」，這樣一來就能避免學會強勢語言而犧牲母語的不良後果，促進添加式的雙語發展。母語返家強調在家庭傳承母語的重要性，也支持學校的母語教育。母語返家雖然重要，但其過程充滿挑戰，家長的母語能力有限，學校的支援又經常不足，導致家庭的母語傳承持續中斷。為了扭轉犧牲母語的削減式教育，有必要以母語優先的觀念為基礎，在家庭和學校推動臺灣本土語言復振。
關鍵詞：家庭語言政策、跨語言實踐、語言活力模式、語言教育政策、語言復振
《詳全文》
參考文獻：
- 何大安（2007，10月）。比利時語言政策：領土原則與語言和平。論文發表於臺灣國際研究學會瞭解當代比利時民主政治學術研討會，臺北市。 【Ho, D.-A. (2007, October). Comments on Belgium’s language policy: The territory principle and language peace. Paper presented at the International Conference of Democracy and Politics in Contemporary Belgium, Taipei, Taiwan.】
- 何萬順（2009）。語言與族群認同：從臺灣外省族群的母語與臺灣華語談起。語言暨語言學，10（2），375-419。 【Her, O.-S. (2009). Language and group identity: On Taiwan Mainlanders’ mother tongues and Taiwan Mandarin. Language and Linguistics, 10(2), 375-419.】
- 李英哲（1995）。二十一世紀臺灣語言的本土化。載於曹逢甫、蔡美惠（主編），臺灣閩南語論文集（pp. 297-306）。臺北市：文鶴。 【Li, Y.-C. (1995). The localization of Taiwan languages for the 21st century. In F.-F. Tsao & M.-H. Tsai (Eds.), Anthology of Taiwanese Min-Nan research articles (pp. 297-306). Taipei, Taiwan: Crane Publishing.】
- 周宣辰（2016）。沉浸式族語教學幼兒園計畫之回顧與前瞻。臺灣教育評論月刊，5（9），25-30。【Chou, H.-C. (2016). The past and future of indigenous languages immersion kindergarten. Taiwan Educational Review Monthly, 5(9), 25-30.】
- 洪麗卿、劉美慧（2018）。美國華盛頓州國小階段跨國移民學生之學習安置和語言支援制度。教育研究集刊，64（2），85-123。doi:10.3966/102887082018066402003 【Hung, L.-C., & Liu, M.-H. (2018). A study of the academic placement and language support policy for immigrant students in an elementary public school of Washington State, U.S.A. Bulletin of Educational Research, 64(2), 85-123. doi:10.3966/102887082018066402003】
» 展開更多
- 何大安（2007，10月）。比利時語言政策：領土原則與語言和平。論文發表於臺灣國際研究學會瞭解當代比利時民主政治學術研討會，臺北市。 【Ho, D.-A. (2007, October). Comments on Belgium’s language policy: The territory principle and language peace. Paper presented at the International Conference of Democracy and Politics in Contemporary Belgium, Taipei, Taiwan.】
- 何萬順（2009）。語言與族群認同：從臺灣外省族群的母語與臺灣華語談起。語言暨語言學，10（2），375-419。 【Her, O.-S. (2009). Language and group identity: On Taiwan Mainlanders’ mother tongues and Taiwan Mandarin. Language and Linguistics, 10(2), 375-419.】
- 李英哲（1995）。二十一世紀臺灣語言的本土化。載於曹逢甫、蔡美惠（主編），臺灣閩南語論文集（pp. 297-306）。臺北市：文鶴。 【Li, Y.-C. (1995). The localization of Taiwan languages for the 21st century. In F.-F. Tsao & M.-H. Tsai (Eds.), Anthology of Taiwanese Min-Nan research articles (pp. 297-306). Taipei, Taiwan: Crane Publishing.】
- 周宣辰（2016）。沉浸式族語教學幼兒園計畫之回顧與前瞻。臺灣教育評論月刊，5（9），25-30。 【Chou, H.-C. (2016). The past and future of indigenous languages immersion kindergarten. Taiwan Educational Review Monthly, 5(9), 25-30.】
- 洪麗卿、劉美慧（2018）。美國華盛頓州國小階段跨國移民學生之學習安置和語言支援制度。教育研究集刊，64（2），85-123。doi:10.3966/102887082018066402003 【Hung, L.-C., & Liu, M.-H. (2018). A study of the academic placement and language support policy for immigrant students in an elementary public school of Washington State, U.S.A. Bulletin of Educational Research, 64(2), 85-123. doi:10.3966/102887082018066402003】
- 張建成（2000）。臺灣地區的鄉土教育。載於張建成（主編），多元文化教育：我們的課題與別人的經驗（pp. 63-102）。臺北市：師大書苑。 【Chang, J. C.-C. (2000). Native education in Taiwan. In J. C.-C. Chang (Ed.), Multicultural education: Our curriculum and other’s experiences (pp. 63-102). Taipei, Taiwan: Lucky Bookstore.】
- 張瑞菊（2018）。國小四年級客語沉浸教學對學童客語聽說能力的影響。全球客家研究，10，59-90。 【Chang, J.-C. (2018). Influence of a grade 4 Hakka language immersion program on schoolchildren’s Hakka listening and speaking competence. Global Hakka Studies, 10, 59-90.】
- 張學謙（2011a）。語言復振的理念與實務：家庭、社區與學校的協作。臺中市：新新臺灣文化教育基金會。 【Tiun, H.-K. (2011a). Theories and practices of language revitalization: The collaboration among family, community and school. Taichung, Taiwan: New New Taiwan Culture Educational Foundation. 】
- 張學謙（2011b）。如何喚醒沉睡中的語言？希伯來語復振的經驗。臺灣國際研究季刊，7（4），127-153。doi:10.29800/TLSQ.201112.0006 【Tiun, H.-K. (2011b). How to awaken a sleeping language? The experience of the Hebrew language revitalization. Taiwan International Studies Quarterly, 7(4), 127-153. doi:10.29800/TLSQ.201112.0006】
- 張學謙（2011c）。從學校語言到生活語言：邁向原住民族語復振。臺灣原住民研究學報，1（3），157-182。doi:10.6396/JTIS.201109.0200 【Tiun, H.-K. (2011c). From school language to vernacular: Toward Formosan language revitalization. Journal of The Taiwan Indigenous Studies Association, 1(3), 157-182. doi:10.6396/JTIS.201109.0200】
- 張學謙（2013）。臺灣語言政策變遷分析：語言人權的觀點。臺東大學人文學報，3（1），45-82。【Tiun, H.-K. (2013). An analysis of the changes of Taiwanese languages’ policy: A perspective from language rights. National Taitung University College of Humanities, 3(1), 45-82.】
- 張學謙（2016）。從單語到雙語教學：語碼轉換在語言教育的運用。臺灣語文研究，4（1），1-25。doi:10.6710/JTLL.201604_11(1).0001 【Tiun, H.-K. (2016). From monolingual to bilingual teaching: Code-switching in language teaching. Journal of Taiwanese Languages and Literature, 4(1), 1-25. doi:10.6710/JTLL.201604_11(1).0001】
- 張學謙（2017）。臺灣原住民族語言復振與族語教學：議題、挑戰與前瞻（II）(III）－原住民族語復振的非制式族語教學計畫評估期中報告。科技部專題研究計畫成果報告（MOST 105-2410-H-143-016-MY2）。臺東縣：國立臺東大學。 【Tiun, H.-K. (2017). An evaluation of non-formal indigenous language programs for language revitalization (II & III)- Midterm report. Ministry of Science and Technology Research Projects Report (MOST 105-2410-H-143- 016-MY2). Taitung, Taiwan: National Taitung University.】
- 張學謙、蘇凰蘭（2017）。毋通予臺語越頭無去：對語言管理看臺語ê保存kah流失。台語研究，9（2），4-30。doi:10.6621/JTV.201709_9(2).0001 【Tiun, H.-K., & Su, H.-L. (2017). Don’t turn your back on Taiwanese: Language management and Taiwanese maintenance and loss. Taiwanese Studies, 9(2), 4-30. doi:10.6621/JTV.201709_9(2).0001】
- 張學謙、蘇凰蘭、張永明、陳思竹（2018）。Ùi國小kap國中生ê臺語使用看臺語保存。台語研究，10（2），4-32。doi:10.6621/JTV.201809_10(2).0001 【Tiun, H.-K., Su, H.-L., Chang, Y.-M., & Chen, S.-C. (2018). Assessing Taiwanese language maintenance from primary and junior high school students’ Taiwanese language use. Taiwanese Studies, 10(2), 4-32. doi:10.6621/JTV.201809_10(2).0001】
- 張學謙、蘇凰蘭（2019）。台語返家計畫：家庭語言計畫的研究設計與推廣—期中報告。科技部專題研究計畫成果報告（MOST 107-2410-H-143-004-MY3）。臺東縣：國立臺東大學。 【Tiun, H.-K., & Su, H.-L. (2019). Bringing Taiwanese home project: Research, design and promotion of family language plan- Midterm report. Ministry of Science and Technology Research Projects Report (MOST 107- 2410-H-143-004-MY3). Taitung, Taiwan: National Taitung University.】
- 曹逢甫（1997）。族群語言政策：海峽兩岸的比較。臺北市：文鶴。 【Tsao, F.-F. (1997). Community language policy: A cross-strait comparison. Taipei, Taiwan: Crane Publishing.】
- 陳美瑩、康紹榮（2000）。臺灣的母語和國語雙語教育。載於花蓮師範學院多元文化教育研究所主辦之「多元文化教育的理論與實際學術研討會」論文集（pp. 415-440），花蓮縣。 【Chen, M.-Y., & Kang, S.-J. (2000). Bilingual education in mother tongue and Mandarin Chinese in Taiwan. In Institute of Multicultural Education, National Hualien Teachers College (Ed.), Conference Proceeding of Multicultural Educational Education and Practices (pp. 415-440), Hualien, Taiwan.】
- 陳淑娟（2004）。桃園大牛欄方言的語音變化與語言轉移。臺北市：國立臺灣大學出版委員會。 【Chen, S.-C. (2004). Phonological change and language shift of Taiwanese Hokkien in Toa-gu-tiau, Taoyuen. Taipei, Taiwan: National Taiwan University Press.】
- 陳淑嬌（2007）。臺灣語言活力研究。載於鄭錦全、何大安、蕭素英、江敏華、張永利（編），語言政策的多元思考（pp. 19- 39）。臺北市：中央研究院語言所。 【Chen, S.-C. (2007). Studies on language vitality of Taiwanese languages. In C.-C. Cheng, D.-A. Ho, S.-Y. Hsiao, M.-H. Chiang, & Y.-L. Chang (Eds.), Multi-thinking in language policy (pp. 19- 39). Taipei, Taiwan: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.】
- 陳雅鈴、李家滿、蔡典龍、陳仁富（2014）。國小一年級客語沉浸教學之成效及挑戰。臺東大學教育學報，25（2），1-29。doi:10.3966/102711202014122502001 【Chen, Y.-L., Li, J.-M., Tsai, D.-L., & Chen, R.-F. (2014). Implementing a Hakka language immersion program on first-grader classrooms: Effectiveness and challenges. NTTU Educational Research Journal, 25(2), 1-29. doi:10. 3966/102711202014122502001】
- 陳雅鈴、陳仁富、蔡典龍（2009）。客語沈浸教學對提昇幼兒客語聽說能力之影響。教育心理學報，41（2），345-360。doi:10.6251/BEP.20081120 【Chen, Y.-L., Chen, R.-F., & Tsai, T.-L. (2009). Influences of Hakka immersion programs on promoting children’s Hakka language listening and speaking abilities. Bulletin of Educational Psychology, 41(2), 345-360. doi:10.6251/BEP.20081120】
- 黃宣範（1993）。語言、社會與族群意識：臺灣語言社會學的研究。臺北市：文鶴。 【Huang, S.-F. (1993). Language, society and ethnicity: A study of the sociology of language in Taiwan. Taipei, Taiwan: Crane.】
- 黃純敏（2014）。轉化的力量：多元文化課程與教學研究（初版增訂）。臺北市：學富。 【Huang, C.-M. (2014). Multicultural curriculum and teaching research (Revised first edition). Taipei, Taiwan: Pro-Ed.】
- 葉高華（2017）。臺灣民眾的家庭語言選擇。臺灣社會學刊，62，59-111。doi:10.6786/TJS. 201712_(62).0002 【Yap, K.-H. (2017). Family language choice in Taiwan. Taiwanese Journal of Sociology, 62, 59-111. doi:10.6786/ TJS.201712_(62).0002】
- 鄭良偉（1990）。演變中的臺灣社會語文：多語社會及雙語教育。臺北市：自立。 【Cheng, R.-L. (1990). Essays on sociolinguistic problems of Taiwan. Taipei, Taiwan: Independent Evening News Press.】
- 蕭素英（2007）。Holo話與客家話的活力：從聯合國教科文組織語言活力與瀕危度的評估準則談起。載於鄭錦全、何大安、蕭素英、江敏華、張永利（編），語言政策的多元思考（pp. 55-71）。臺北市：中央研究院語言所。 【Hsiao, S.-Y. (2007). Language vitalities of Holo and Hakka languages, based on the evaluation of UNESCO’s language vitality and scale of language endangerment. In C.-C. Cheng, D.-A. Ho, S.-Y. Hsiao, M.-H. Chiang, & Y.-L. Chang (Eds.), Multi-thinking in language policy (pp. 55-71). Taipei, Taiwan: Institute of Linguistics, Academia Sinica.】
- Ada, A. F. (1995). Fostering the home-school connection. In J. Frederickson (Ed.), Reclaiming our voices: Bilingual education, critical pedagogy & praxis (pp. 163-178). Los Angeles, CA: California Association for Bilingual Education.
- Allard, R., & Landry, R. (1992). Ethnolinguistic vitality beliefs and language maintenance and loss. In W. Fase, K. Jaespaert, & S. Kroon (Eds.), Maintenance and loss of minority languages (pp. 171-195). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Benjamins.
- Baker, C. (1997). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (2nd ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
- Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism (5th ed.). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
- Blackledge, A., & Creese, A. (2010). Multilingualism: A critical perspective. London, UK: Continuum.
- Campbell, C. (2000). Menter Cwn Gwendraeth: A case-study in community language planning. In C. H. Williams (Ed.), Language revitalization: Policy and planning in Wales (pp. 247-291). Wales, UK: University of Wales Press.
- Cantoni, G. P. (1997). Keeping minority languages alive: The school’s responsibility. In J. Reyhner (Ed.), Teaching indigenous languages (pp. 1-9). Flagstaff, AZ: Center for Excellence in Education, Northern Arizona University.
- Cazden, C., & Dickenson, D. K. (1981). Language in education: Standardization versus cultural pluralism. In C. A. Ferguson & S. Brice-Heath (Eds.), Language in the USA (pp. 457-458). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Conteh, J., & Meier, G. (Eds.). (2014). The multilingual turn in languages education: Opportunities and challenges. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
- Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222-251. doi:10.3102/00346543049002222
- Cummins, J. (2001). Bilingual children’s mother tongue: Why is it important for education? Sprogforum, 7(19), 15-20.
- Cummins, J. (2007). Rethinking monolingual instructional strategies in multilingual classrooms. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10(2), 221-240.
- Fishman, J. A. (1976). Bilingual education: An international sociological perspective. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
- Fishman, J. A. (1991). Reversing language shift. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
- Fishman, J. A. (1996). What do you lose when you lose your language? In G. Cantoni (Ed.), Stabilizing indigenous languages (pp. 71-81). Flagstaff, AZ: Northern Arizona University.
- García, O. (2009). Bilingual education in the 21st century: A global perspective. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
- García, O., & Li, W. (2014). Translanguaging: Language, bilingualism and education. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan Pivot.
- García, O., & Lin, A. M. Y. (2016). Translanguaging in bilingual education. In O. García, A. M. Y. Lin, & S. May (Eds.), Bilingual and multilingual education (Encyclopedia of Language and Education) (pp. 117-130). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
- Hinton, L. (Ed.). (2013). Bringing our languages home: Language revitalization for families. Berkeley, CA: Heyday Books.
- Homberger, N. H. (1994). Literacy and language planning. Language and Education, 8(1&2), 75-86. doi:10.1080/09500789409541380
- Hooks, B. (1995). This is the oppressor’s language/yet I need it to talk to you: Language, a place of struggle. In A. Dingwaney & C. Maier (Eds.), Between languages and cultures: Translation and cross-cultural texts (pp. 295-301). London, UK: University of Pittsburgh Press.
- Huang, H. Y. (2017). Rethinking Taiwanese nationality and subjectivity: Implications from language issues in colonial Taiwan in the 1920s. Paedagogica Historica, 53(4), 428-440. doi:10.1080/00309230.2017.1290662
- Jones, A. W. (1996). Marketing: A valuable discipline in language planning. In M. N. Craith (Ed.), Watching one’s tongue: Issues in language planning (pp. 67-80). Liverpool, UK: Liverpool University Press.
- Jones, B. (2017). Translanguaging in bilingual schools in Wales. Journal of Language, Identity & Education, 16(4), 199-215. doi:10.1080/15348458.2017.1328282
- Kennedy, C. (1984). Language planning and language education. London, UK: George Allen and Unwin.
- Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
- Lambert, W. E. (1977). The effects of bilingualism on the individual: Cognitive and sociocultural consequences. In P. A. Hornby (Ed.), Bilingualism: Psychological, social and educational implications (pp. 15-27). New York, NY: Academic Press.
- Lewis, G., Jones, B., & Baker, C. (2012). Translanguaging: Origins and development from school to street and beyond. Educational Research and Evaluation, 18(7), 641-654. doi:10.1080/13803611.2012.718488
- Lo Bianco, J. (2011). What “saving” languages might tell us about “teaching” them. Babel, 45(2/3), 41-50.
- Lo Bianco, J., & Peyton, J. K. (2013). Vitality of heritage languages in the United States: The role of capacity, opportunity, and desire. Heritage Language Journal, 10(3), 1-8.
- Makalela, L. (2015). Translanguaging practices in complex multilingual spaces: A discontinuous continuity in post-independent South Africa. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 234, 115-132. doi:10.1515/ijsl-2015-0007
- McWhorter, J. (2003). The power of babel: A natural history of language. New York, NY: Harper Perennial Books.
- Nahir, M. (1988). Language planning and language acquisition: The “great leap” in the Hebrew revival. In C. B. Paulston (Ed.), International handbook of bilingualism and bilingual education (pp. 273-295). New York, NY: Greenwood Press.
- Peyton, J. K. (2014, April). Vitality of Hindi in the United States: Patterns of use and development, challenges, and possible next steps. Paper presented at the International Hindi Conference, New York, NY.
- Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientation in language planning. NABE Journal, 8(2), 15-34. doi:10.1080/08855072.1984.10668464
- Schwartz, M. (2010). Family language policy: Core issues of an emerging field. Applied Linguistics Review, 1(1), 171-192. doi:10.1515/9783110222654.171
- Scott, M., & Tiun, H.-K. (2007). Mandarin-only to Mandarin-plus: Taiwan. Language Policy, 6, 53-72. doi:10.1007/s10993-006-9040-5
- Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education- or worldwide diversity and human rights? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
- Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & Phillipson, R. (1994). Linguistic human rights, past and present. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas, R. Phillipson, & M. Rannut (Eds.), Linguistic human rights: Overcoming linguistic discrimination (pp. 71-110). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
- Spolsky, B. (1991). Hebrew language revitalization within a general theory of second language learning. In R. L. Cooper & B. Spolsky (Eds.), The influence of language on culture and thought: essays in honor of Joshua a. Fishman’s sixty-fifth birthday (pp. 133-155). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
- Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
- Tollefson, J. W. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality: Language policy in the community. London, UK: Longman.
- United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2003). Education in a multilingual world: Education position paper. Paris, France: Author.
- Zuckermann, G. (2020). Revivalistics: From the genesis of Israeli to language reclamation in Australia and beyond. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
- Zuckermann, G., & Walsh, M. (2011). Stop, revive, survive: Lessons from the Hebrew revival applicable to the reclamation, maintenance and empowerment of aboriginal languages and cultures. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 31(1), 111-127. doi:10.1080/07268602.2011.532859
Journal directory listing - Volume 65 (2020) - Journal of Research in Education Sciences【65(1)】March (Special Issue: Language and Culture Education Policies)
(Special Issue) Mother Tongues First: Planning Taiwanese Native Languages Education Policy for Language Revitalization
Author: Hak-Khiam Tiun (Department of Chinese Language and Literature, National Taitung University)
Vol.&No.：Vol. 65, No.1
Date：March 2020
Pages：175-200
DOI：10.6209/JORIES.202003_65(1).0007
Abstract：
The family domain as a base of native language has been invaded by Mandarin Chinese and its force in politics, the economy, communication and media, and education. Mandarin has replaced the traditional functions and positions of mother tongues in families and communities. Although mother tongue education has been implemented for years, a shift is occurring from mother tongues to Mandarin. Native language educational planning for language revitalization must therefore be reconsidered. In the past, mother tongue education was provided only in school and lacked support from families and communities and guidance from language revitalization theory. This article proposes that native language revitalization requires the inclusion of bilingual education that prioritizes mother tongues. A comprehensive language revitalization model is employed to establish a guarded section for mother tongues among families, communities, and schools. Applying a language vitality model into planning, developing language abilities, creating language opportunities, and increasing desires for language use can be practiced during each of the four steps of language revitalization—ideological awakening, school education, extension beyond school, and intergenerational language transmission. Bringing mother tongues home is the key to passing down languages throughout generations. It requires the application of family language policy and exploration of language ideology, management, and practice. The method of translanguaging can be adopted in school education so that the use of mother tongues as teaching languages can create additional spaces for mother tongue education.
Correction：
Corrigendum: Mother Tongues First: Planning Taiwanese Native Languages Education Policy for Language Revitalization
Keywords：family language policy, translanguaging, language vitality model, language education policy, language revitalization