Haugen’s model (in Sociolinguistics , Penguin, Harmondsworth, pp 97–111, 1972 [1966]) of standardisation has been widely adopted in general histories of particular languages, not least because of its clarity and simplicity. In this article, I focus on its treatment of codification, with a view to suggesting refinements to this part of the model. In particular, I discuss the relationship between codification and prescription on the one hand, and between prescriptivism and purism on the other. Haugen makes no distinction between codification and prescription either in the original version of his model (Haugen 1972 [1966]), or in its revised version (Haugen in Blessings of Babel. Bilingualism and language planning problems and pleasures , Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, 1987 ). Indeed, he seems to consider codification and prescription as broadly interchangeable, suggesting that the typical products of codification are a prescriptive orthography, grammar and dictionary. Whilst Milroy and Milroy ( Authority in language: Investigating language prescription and standardisation , 2 edn, Routledge, London/New York, 1991 ) do differentiate codification and prescription, neither model mentions purism, although Deumert and Vandenbussche ( Germanic standardisations: Past to present , John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 2003 ) argue that it is essential to consider its role in the history of standardisation. I offer definitions of the different terms and argue that, when considering the role of prescriptivism and purism in linguistic standardisation, it is important to distinguish between the author’s/work’s intention, use of metalanguage, and effect. Finally, I adapt George Thomas’s model for assessing purism to the assessment of prescriptivism, thereby avoiding viewing prescription and description as a simple dichotomy.

中文翻译：

---

从豪根的法典化到托马斯的纯粹主义：评估描述和规定、规定主义和纯粹主义在语言标准化中的作用

Haugen 的标准化模型（在社会语言学，企鹅，Harmondsworth，pp 97-111，1972 [1966]）已被广泛采用在特定语言的通史中，尤其是因为它的清晰和简单。在本文中，我将重点介绍其对编码的处理，以期对模型的这一部分提出改进建议。特别地，我一方面讨论了编纂和处方之间的关系，另一方面讨论了规定主义和纯粹主义之间的关系。豪根在其模型的原始版本（Haugen 1972 [1966]）或修订版（Haugen in Blessings of Babel。双语和语言规划问题和乐趣，Mouton de Gruyter，柏林， 1987 年）。确实，他似乎认为编纂和处方可以广泛地互换，这表明编纂的典型产品是规定的正字法、语法和词典。虽然 Milroy 和 Milroy（语言权威：调查语言处方和标准化，2 edn，Routledge，伦敦/纽约，1991 年）确实区分了编纂和处方，但两个模型都没有提到纯粹主义，尽管 Deumert 和 Vandenbussche（日耳曼标准化：过去到现在， John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 2003 ）认为必须考虑其在标准化历史中的作用。我提供了不同术语的定义，并认为，在考虑规定主义和纯粹主义在语言标准化中的作用时，区分作者/作品的意图很重要，元语言的使用和效果。最后，我将乔治·托马斯评估纯粹主义的模型改编为对规定主义的评估，从而避免将规定和描述视为简单的二分法。