Примењена лингвистика у част Ранку Бугарском - Језик у

JEZIK U UPOTREBI / LANGUAGE IN USE
viduals and groups, intended to adjust patterns of language use to the needs and
demands of communicative practices in different communicative domains and
within different segments of our standard language cultures.
2. Standard language cultures and language policy and planning
The end of the 20 th and the beginning of the 21 st century in Europe is marked by
active and conscientious examination of linguistic human rights, language ecology
and language education policies. Consequently, preservation and revitalization
of minority, regional and migrant languages have become topics of a number
of international documents, policies and declarations. Thus, less and less space
is dedicated by language planners to issues regarding corpus planning of the socalled
national languages characterized by long traditions of standardization, carried
out through the nationalist or modular model of standardization (Geeraerts
2003; Bugarski 2005). This cultural model of standardization identifies the state
with the nation and the nation with the standard language (for a more detailed
account of the operation of this model in the process of standardization of Serbian,
see Filipović 2009a). I strongly believe that the postmodern, constructivist
approach to language policy and planning should dedicate part of its research
agenda to the future of standard languages (along with the aforementioned issues
of linguistic human rights and revitalization of endangered languages). From that
assertion the further conclusion can be drawn that we need to turn our efforts to
the revaluation of the politics of knowledge 2 and to epistemological orientations
which have for centuries shaped the language policies and language planning
procedures of standard languages, as well as to consider the possibility of applying
alternative approaches to language policy which would enable the natural development
of standard linguistic varieties in accordance with the social, cultural
and political development of the societies which use them.
By politics of knowledge I understand institutionalized epistemological
orientations and methodological procedures used to select and analyze phenomena
in different scientific fields and strategies used to define scientific facts about
those phenomena. Politics of knowledge also includes narrative and rhetorical
devices and linguistic registers used to describe, present and distribute those sci-
2 Hacking 1999 (cit. in Phelan 2001: 129), makes a distinction between the practice of science and
the ideology of science. While the practice of science has enabled us to construct theories that account
for the phenomena of the natural world, it has also provided science and scientists with an
ideologically priviledged position within our societies. This has had a decisive impact on attitude
formation and acceptance or rejection of points of view (the rejection being predominantly reserved
for those who do not fit into the frameworks of thought of the dominant political, economic, military
and cultural powers embodied in scientists and scientific institutions which have for centuries
formed a particular social elite within European and other societies).
125