ELL: Re: first vs. native language

[Julia Sallabank]

Dear Gerd

I agree with much of what you say. But I have heard a number of people
making the same statement, that they 'cannot speak their native language',
e.g. from newly independent former Soviet republics where Russian was
promoted by the previous regime. I am 'relearning' my heritage language and
finding that it feels very familiar, perhaps because I heard some when I was
young, although my mother denies it.

I think that the question of 'who does a language belong to?' is a very
important one. Does it belong to native speakers, most of whom are now quite
old, who due to various pressures (often to protect their children at school
and to give them an economic advantage) did not pass on the language to the
next generation?. Or does the guardianship pass to younger enthusiasts who
have (re)learnt it and who are attempting to revitalise it? In many places
there is increased awareness among younger people of the importance of
linguistic heritage: perhaps a sign of the 'attitude shift' observed by
Dorian (1993), 'common among the members of a community two generations
after the one which failed to pass its language on' (Crystal 2000: 106). I
think it is partly due to a realisation of what is being lost in terms of
'grounding' and identity.

Campaigners often want to raise the status of a language, to have it
officially recognised and taught in schools. For this they need to develop a
standard orthography and new terminology for modern concepts. It seems to me
that some older people would rather let the language die with them than see
it develop out of all recognition from the language they know and love. But
it must not be forgotten that these older native speakers are an important
source of both the language and its oral traditions, many of which have not
yet been recorded for posterity.

Once again this raises the question of language and identity and langauge
and culture, as well as potential splits between enthusiasts. Younger
campaigners are more willing to divorce the language from the traditional
culture that older native speakers identify with and regret the passing of:
some younger people experienced the traditional culture as repressive, so it
may not be good PR to link language to old culture too much!

Another argument that we can give for saving small languages is that
diversity is a 'good thing': in nature, society, and languages.

Lots of food for thought

Julia

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gerd Jendraschek" <jendraschek at hotmail.com>
To: "Endangered-Languages-L at Cleo.Murdoch.Edu.Au"
<endangered-languages-l at cleo.murdoch.edu.au>
Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 3:50 PM
Subject: ELL: first vs. native language


> Dear Julia (and all the others),
>
> Some days ago, you wrote the following:
>
> > One speaker made a point that I could identify with. He said that
although
> > English was his first language, he had never felt that it was his native
> > language, and now he was reclaiming his own language and finding it very
> > fulfilling.
>
> Some time ago, I heard someone from Brittany complain that he could not
> speak his native language ("Je ne sais pas parler ma langue maternelle.")
> and he meant by that that he was monolingual in French. I was wondering
why
> he had used the concept of 'mother tongue' for a language he had obviously
> never acquired during his childhood, which is an uncommon usage of the
term.
> At the time, I thought he had just mixed up terminology and meant
something
> like "the language of my region/of my ancestors", but your message
suggests
> another interpretation.
>
> In a rather litteral sense he could have meant that his mother was able to
> speak Breton, but did not transmit the language. However, most probably he
> intended to say that "under normal circumstances" Breton would be his
first
> language if transmission had not been interrupted by a language policy
> advocating monolingualism in the official language (as did language
policies
> all over the world). In such a setting you could call the dominant
language
> "foster language" in analogy to "foster parents". Foster parents are
> supposed to fulfil the same role as "biological parents" (which in my
> analogy might correspond to the term "heritage language") but quite often
> the affective relationship cannot be the same: it can only be a
replacement
> for a loss. You probably heard about the many cases of adopted children
> looking desperately for their genetic ancestors although there is no
> rational, but only an affective need to do so. A while ago, I also heard
of
> two sisters who were brought up in different families in different
countries
> and spoke different languages, but although they were foreigners to each
> other there was an emotional link.
>
> I am more and more convinced that a "link to the (own) past" makes you
know
> who you are and is crucial for cultural creativity and that cutting this
> link entails cultural disorientation.
>
> I have been thinking about the "emotional factor" in language preservation
> for quite a while, as it seems to be the only argument that can convince
> monolingual laymen who appear to see particular languages as a
communication
> device they happen to use in the same way as they use telephones and
> postcards, i.e. replaceable if something more efficient shows up. Maybe I
am
> exaggerating, at least I hope so.
>
> Best wishes
>
> GERD
>
> ----
> Endangered-Languages-L Forum: endangered-languages-l at cleo.murdoch.edu.au
> Web pages http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/lists/endangered-languages-l/
> Subscribe/unsubscribe and other commands: majordomo at cleo.murdoch.edu.au
> ----

----
Endangered-Languages-L Forum: endangered-languages-l at cleo.murdoch.edu.au
Web pages http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/lists/endangered-languages-l/
Subscribe/unsubscribe and other commands: majordomo at cleo.murdoch.edu.au
----