| 内容 |
Globalization has led to the death of many languages. While dominant languages, especially English, gets more power in the world, indigenous languages on all continents have vanished from the earth. David Crystal argues that “healthy bilingualism” offers the ideal situation to save endangered languages. To revive such dying languages, governments, international organizations and linguists are making desperate efforts. Yet, while many organizations and governments have taken up language planning, most have failed. For instance, African countries have not made any significant progress in indigenous language education. At the same time, Hawaii and, to some extent, parts of South America have succeeded in language planning. Hawaii, incorporating methods first used in Quebec, use a network of Hawaiian-language institutions to create a system that operates independently of English, the dominant language. These developments in Hawaii began as a grass-roots movement. Andean countries Peru and Ecuador also adopted intercultural indigenous language education as their language policy. Yet, their introduction processes differ from Hawaii in that the Peruvian government took the initiative in creating the system. In Ecuador, grass-roots movements were first eager to save their indigenous culture and language. Inspired by the grass-roots movements, Ecuadorian government undertook political reform. This thesis compares the Hawaiian and Quechua cases to examine Crystal’s healthy bilingualism hypothesis. |