本土語言教育政策之批判論述分析

• Main Author: 羅維仁
• Other Authors: 莊勝義 博士
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2015
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/80294259721863726725

博士 === 國立高雄師範大學 === 教育學系 === 103 === A Critical Discourse Analysis on Education Policies for the Development of Native Languages Abstract This study was aimed to grasp the very meaning and trajectory of the development of education policies for native languages. In order to do so, education policies, documents, and official reports relating to native languages were collected and practioners concerned with native language education were interviewed. Together with policy texts, a comprehensive body of data was thus needed to set the sociocultural background and the processes of policy-making. In doing so, an account of critical discourse analysis (CDA) was employed as the main method with the supplement of documentory analysis and qualitative interview. The findings and conclusion were briefed as follows: Firstly, the very purpose and meaning of education policy for native language seemed to be a reaction against the exclusive official language policy during the decades of Chiang’s (Kai-shek) dictatorship. The dissonance between political parties on both the issue of national identity and the core idea of native language was, on the one side, strategically disguised by instrumental factors such as curriculum, teaching materials, teachers, and evaluation while, on the other side, resorting to human rights and cultural rights to the revitalization and refreshing of native languages and cultures. Secondly, a sense of Foucauldian power/knowledge was found to be an underlying assumption that rationalized the majority principle so as to maintain the high status-low status division of languages, knowledge, and cultures. The option among three native languages was designed on the basis of “cultural differentiation” rather than multiculturalism. Under such circumstances, the goal of native language education would hardly be achieved, let alone the ideal of multicultural education. Finally, the sense of self-censorship configured through social control and political dictatorship together with the so called “free competition”strategy embedded in societal and school lives might have limited, narrowed, and marginalized the significance of native language education. In comparison with Mandarin (national language) and English, native languages were of less concern for students, parents, and schools. However, quite a few native language teachers and cultural workers devoting themselves in the instruction or dissemination of native languages would become the demanding hope of the future transmission of Taiwan native languages. If language is a significant symbol of ethnic and cultural identity, then the policy of native language would be entangled with political purposes and cultural interests. To take warning from the pages of history, where there human rights were not respected, there were conflicts, fightings, or wars. If the revitalization and refreshing of native languages should witness the shift of human rights to cultural rithts, then this study would hopefully be a catalyst for further engagement. Keywords: native language, education policy for native language, critical discourse analysis