Телне нормальләштерү: юрамалар арасында аерма

Бүгенге көндә, дөньяда галимнәрегалимнәр тарафыннан тел планлаштыруның унбер максаты танылган (Nahir 2003):<ref name=Nahir>Nahir, Moshe. "Language Planning Goals: A Classification." ''Sociolinguistics: The Essential Readings.'' Eds. Paulston, Christina Bratt and G. Richard Tucker. Oxford: Blackwell, 2003</ref>

# Телне чистарту – Телнеңтелнең [[лингвистик чисталык|лингвистик чисталыгынсафлыгын]] ([[:en:linguistic purism|ингл.]]) яклау, чит илтелләр телләре тәэсирләренәнйогынтысыннан һәм кулланучыларның нормаданкабул ителгән нормалардан баш тартуларыннантартуыннан саклау

# [[Тел яңарышы|Телне җанландыру]] – ана теле дәрәҗәсендә сөйләшүчеләр аз яки юк дәрәҗәсендә булган телне киреяңадан нормаль аралашу коралы (коммуникация инструменты) хәленә кайтару торышлыгытырышлыгы<ref>Linguist Ghil'ad Zuckermann claims that any attempt to revive a no-longer spoken language is likely to end up with a hybrid - see Zuckermann, Ghil'ad, [http://www.zuckermann.org/pdf/Hybridity_versus_Revivability.pdf Hybridity versus Revivability: Multiple Causation, Forms and Patterns]. In ''Journal of Language Contact'', Varia 2 (2009), 40-67.</ref>

# Тел реформасы ([[:en:Language reform|ингл.]]) – телнең кулланылышын уңайлырак кылу өчен [[орфография]], [[язылыш]], яки [[грамматика]] кебек өлкәләренәөлкәләргә махсус оештырылган үзгәрешләр кертү.

# Телне стандартлаштыру – региональ диалект яки [[телнең престижы]]н ([[:en:Prestige (sociolinguistics)|ингл.]]) үстерү, аның [[регион]]датөбәктә кулланылышын югарырак дәрәҗәгә чыгару яки стандарт телгә әйләндерү торышлыгытырышлыгы

# Телнең таралышын үстерү – бер телдә сөйләшүчеләр санын башка телдә сөйләшүчеләрсөйләшүчеләрне җәлеп саныитү аркасындааша үстерү торышлыгытырышлыгы

# Лексик модернизациясемодернизация – сүзләрне булдыру яки адаптацияяраклаштыру юлы белән үзләштерү.

# Стилистик гадиләштерелү – [[лексикон]], грамматика, һәм стиль ягыннан тел кулланылышын гадиләштерү.

# Телләрара коммуникация – аерым сөйләм җәмгыятьләре әгъзаләреәгъзалары арасында лингвистик коммуникациясенкоммуникацияне җиңеләйтү.

# Телнең кулланылышын саклау – төркемнең [[ана теле]]н [[беренчел тел|беренчел]] яки [[икенчел тел]] дәрәҗәсендә кулланылышын саклау, телнең статусын төшерергә янаган яки төшүенеңтөшү сәбәбе булган басым очракларында.

# Ярдәмчел кодларынкодларны стандартлаштыру – телнең [[транслитерация]] һәм [[транскрипция]] кагыйдәләрен, кулланылган [[топоним|топонимнар]]лар (урын исемнәре) һәм ишетмәүчеләр өчен билгеләр кебек телнең ярдәмчел аспектларынаспектларны стандартлаштыру.

#Рәсми - An official language "function[s] as a legally appropriate language for all politically and culturally representative purposes on a nationwide basis."<ref name=Stewart ></ref> Often, the official function of a language is specified in a [[constitution]].

#Киң коммуникация - A language of wider communication is a language that may be official or provincial, but more importantly, functions as a medium of communication across language boundaries within a nation (e.g. [[Hindi]] in India; [[Swahili language]] in [[East Africa]])<ref name=Cooper ></ref>

#Халыкара - An international language functions as a medium of communication across national boundaries (e.g. English)<ref name=Cooper ></ref>

#Башкала - A capital language functions as a prominent language in and around a national [[capital (political)|capital]] (e.g. [[Dutch language|Dutch]] and French in [[Brussels]])<ref name=Cooper ></ref>

#Төркем - A group language functions as a conventional language among the members of a single cultural or ethnic group (e.g. Hebrew amongst the [[Jews]])<ref name=Cooper ></ref>

#Белем бирү - An educational language functions as a medium of instruction in [[primary education|primary]] and [[secondary education|secondary]] schools on a regional or national basis ([[Urdu]] in [[West Pakistan]] and [[Bengali language|Bengali]] in [[East Pakistan]])<ref name=Cooper ></ref>

#Мәктәп дәресе - A school subject language is a language that is taught as a subject in secondary school or [[higher education]] (e.g. [[Latin]] and [[Greek language|Ancient Greek]] in English schools)<ref name=Cooper ></ref>

#Әдәби - A literary language functions as a language for [[literature|literary]] or [[scholarly]] purposes (Ancient Greek)<ref name=Cooper ></ref>

#Дини - A religious language functions as a language for the ritual purposes of a particular religion (e.g. Latin for the [[Latin Rite]] within the [[Roman Catholic Church]]; [[Arabic]] for the reading of the [[Qur'an]])<ref name=Cooper ></ref>

Robert Cooper, in reviewing Stewart's list, makes several additions. First, he creates three sub-types of official functions: statutory, working, and symbolic.<ref name=Cooper ></ref> A statutory language is a language that a government has declared official by law. A working language is a language that a government uses as a medium for daily activities, and a symbolic language is a language that is merely a [[symbol]] of the state. Cooper also adds two functional domains to Stewart's list: mass media and work.

<!--Corpus planning refers to the [[linguistic prescription|prescriptive]] intervention in the forms of a language, whereby planning decisions are made to engineer changes in the structure of the language.<ref name=FergusonG>Ferguson, Gibson. (2006). Language Planning and Education. Edinburgh University Press.</ref> Corpus planning activities often arise as the result of beliefs about the adequacy of the form of a language to serve desired functions.<ref name=Hornberger>Hornberger, Nancy H. (2006). “Frameworks and Models in Language Policy and Planning”, in Thomas Ricento, ''An Introduction to Language Policy'', Wiley-Blackwell, pp 24-41.</ref> Unlike status planning, which is primarily undertaken by administrators and politicians, corpus planning generally involves planners with greater linguistic expertise.<ref name=FergusonG ></ref> There are three traditionally recognized types of corpus planning: graphization, standardization, and modernization.-->

<!--Graphization refers to development, selection and modification of [[writing system|scripts]] and orthographic conventions for a language.<ref name=Liddicoat>Liddicoat, Anthony J. (2005). “Corpus Planning: Syllabus and Materials Development,” in Eli Hinkel, ''Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning'', Routledge, pp 993-1012.</ref> The use of writing in a speech community can have lasting sociocultural effects, which include easier transmission of material through generations, communication with larger numbers of people, and a standard against which varieties of spoken language are often compared.<ref name=FergusonC>Ferguson, Charles A. (1968). “Language Development”, in Charles A. Ferguson, Thom Huebner (1996), ''Sociolinguistic Perspectives: papers on language in society, 1959-1994'', Oxford University Press US, pp 40-47.</ref> Linguist [[Charles A. Ferguson]] made two key observations about the results of adopting a writing system. First, the use of writing adds another variety of the language to the community’s repertory. Although written language is often viewed as secondary to spoken language, the [[vocabulary]], [[grammar|grammatical structures]] and [[phonology|phonological structures]] of a language often adopt characteristics in the written form that are distinct from the spoken variety. Second, the use of writing often leads to a folk belief that the written language is the ‘real’ language, and speech is a corruption of it. Written language is viewed as more conservative, while the spoken variety is more susceptible to language change. However, this view ignores the possibility that isolated relic areas of the language may be less innovative than the written form or the written language may have been based on a divergent variety of the spoken language.<ref name=FergusonC ></ref>

In establishing a writing system for a language, corpus planners have the option of using an existing system or inventing a new one. The [[Ainu people|Ainu]] of [[Japan]] chose to adopt the [[Japanese language]]’s [[katakana]] [[syllabary]] as the writing system for the [[Ainu language]]. Katakana is designed for a language with a basic CV [[syllable structure]], but Ainu contains many CVC syllables that cannot easily be adapted to this syllabary. As a result, Ainu uses a modified katakana system, in which syllable-final [[syllable coda|codas]] are [[consonants]] by a [[subscript]] version of a katakana symbol that begins with the desired consonant.<ref name=Liddicoat ></ref> An example on an invented script includes the development of the [[Armenian alphabet|Armenian script]] in 405 AD by [[Saint Mesrob|St. Mesrop Mashtots]]. Though the script was modeled after the [[Greek alphabet]], the original script distinguished Armenian from the Greek and [[Syriac alphabet]]s of the neighboring peoples.<ref name=Cooper ></ref>-->

Телнең бер варианты телнең башка иҗтимагый яки региональ диалектларыннан өстенлек алуга ''телнең стандартлаштылыруы'' диелә.<ref name=Christian>Christian, Donna (1988). “Language Planning: the view from linguistics”, in Frederick J. Newmeyer, ''Language: the socio-cultural context'', Cambridge University Press, pp 193-211.</ref> Бу вариант супра-диалекталь, яки телнең ‘иң яхшы’ формасы буларак кабул ителә башлый.<ref name=FergusonC /> Кай тел өстенлек алуы зур иҗтимагый нәтиҗәләргә ия, чөрки сөйләм һәм язу диалеклары сайланган стандартка иң якын булган кешеләр привилегияле хәлгә эләгә.<ref name=Wiley>Wiley, Terrance G. (2003). “Language Planning and Policy,” in Sandra McKay, Nancy H. Horberger, ''Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching'', Cambridge University Press, pp 103-147.</ref> <!--The standard that is chosen as the norm is generally spoken by the most powerful social group within the society, and is imposed upon the less powerful groups as the form to emulate. This often reinforces the dominance of the powerful social group and makes the standard norm necessary for socioeconomic mobility.<ref name=FergusonG ></ref> In practice, standardization generally entails increasing the uniformity of the norm, as well as the [[Codification (linguistics)|codification]] of the norm.<ref name=FergusonC ></ref>

<!--The education [[Ministry (government department)|ministry]] or education sector of government is typically in charge of making national [[language acquisition]] decisions based on state and local evaluation reports. The responsibilities of education sectors vary by country; [[Robert B. Kaplan]] and Richard B. Baldauf describe the sectors’ six principal goals<ref name= Kaplan ></ref>:

<!--Although acquisition planning can be useful to governments, there are several problems that must be considered.<ref name= Thorburn>Thorburn, Thomas. “Cost-Benefit Analysis in Language Planning.” ''Can Language Be Planned?'' Ed. Rubin, Joan, and Björn H. Jernudd. Hawaii: The University Press of Hawaii, 1971</ref> Even with a solid evaluation and assessment system, the effects of planning methods can never be certain; governments must consider the effects on other aspects of state planning, such as economic and political planning. Some proposed acquisition changes could also be too drastic or instituted too suddenly without proper planning and organization. Acquisition planning can also be financially draining, so adequate planning and awareness of financial resources is essential. It is important therefore that government goals, such as those described above, be organized and planned carefully.<ref name= Thorburn ></ref>-->

<!--In addition to the education sector, there are non-governmental sectors or organizations that have a significant impact on language acquisition, such as the Académie française of France or the Real Academia Española of Spain.<ref name= Kaplan ></ref> These organizations often create their own dictionaries and grammar books, thus affecting the materials students are exposed to in schools. Although these organizations do not hold official power, they influence government planning decisions, such as with educational materials, effecting acquisition.<ref name= Kaplan ></ref>-->

<!--The three main types of corpus planning are all evident in the development of Quechua languages in Peru. Graphization has been in process since the arrival of the Spanish in the region, when the Spanish imperialists attempted to describe the exotic sounds of the language to Europeans.<ref name= Coronel>Coronel-Molina, Serafin M. (1996). “Corpus Planning for the Southern Peruvian Quechua Language.” Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 12 (2), pp 1-27.</ref> When Quechua was made an official language in Peru in 1975, the introduction of the language into the education and government domains made it essential to have a standard written language.<ref name= Coronel ></ref> The task of adopting a writing system proved to be a point of contention among Peruvian linguists. Although most agreed that the [[Latin alphabet]], linguists disagreed about how to represent the phonological system of Quechua, particularly in regards to the vowel system. Representatives from the [[Academia Mayor de la Lengua Quechua|Peruvian Academy of the Quechua language]] and the [[SIL International|Summer Institute of Linguistics]] wanted to represent [[allophone]]s of the [[vowel]]s /i/ and /u/ with separate letters /e/ and /o/, which creates an apparent five-vowel system. They argued that this makes the language easier to learn for people who are already familiar with written Spanish. However, other Peruvian linguists argued that a three-vowel system was more faithful to the [[phonology]] of Quechua. After several years of debate and disagreement, in 1985 Peruvian linguists proposed the Pan-Quechua alphabet as an accurate representation of the language and this was adopted in [[intercultural bilingual education]] programs and textbooks. However, the Peruvian Academy and the SIL both refused to adopt it and continued to propose new alphabets, leaving the issue unsettled.<ref name= Coronel ></ref> For more information, see [[Quechua languages#Writing_system|Quechua writing system]] and [[Quechuan and Aymaran spelling shift]]. Another of the primary issues disagreements was about how to reflect the phonological differences apparent in different dialects of Quechua. For example, some distinct dialects utilize [[Aspiration (phonetics)|aspirated]] and [[glottalization|glottalized]] versions of the [[voiceless uvular plosive|voiceless uvular stop /q/]], while others do not and some language planners found it important to reflect these dialectal differences.<ref name= Coronel ></ref> The search for a unified alphabet reflects the process of standardization. Unlike other cases of standardization, in Quechua this has only been applied to the written language, not the spoken language and no attempt was made to change the spoken language of native speakers. Rather the standardization process was motivated by the need to have a uniform writing system to provide education to Quechua speakers in their native language. Language planners in Peru have proposed several varieties to serve as the supradialectal norm. Some saw [[Qusqu-Qullaw]] as the natural choice for a standard norm, as it is recognized to be the variety closest to that spoken by the Incas. Others argued that [[Ayacucho Quechua]] is a better option, as the language is more conservative and similar to the proto-language, while Qusqu-Qullaw has been influenced by contact with the [[Aymara language]]. [[Rodolfo Cerrón-Palomino]] proposed a standard literary norm, [[Southern Quechua]] that combines features of both these dialects. This norm has been accepted by many institutions in Peru.<ref name= Coronel ></ref> Lexical modernization has also been critical to the development of Quechua. Language planners have attempted to create new Quechua words primarily through Quechua morphemes that combine in new ways to give new meanings. In general, loanwords from other languages are considered only when there are no possibilities to develop the word through existing Quechua structures. If loanwords are adopted into the language, linguists attempt to phonologically adapt the word to match typical Quechua pronunciation norms.<ref name= Coronel ></ref>