Swahili

[Stan-Sandy Anonby]

From: Stan & Sandy Anonby
Date: 04/18/04 21:34:11
To: Jan Blommaert
Subject: Re: Does language prestige correlate with community size?


I didn't say Swahili was a minority language, I said it was spoken as a
mother tongue by a minority of people.

Stan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jan Blommaert" <Jan.Blommaert at UGent.be>
To: <lgpolicy-list at ccat.sas.upenn.edu>; "Stan & Sandy Anonby"
<stan-sandy_anonby at sil.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2004 5:34 PM
Subject: Re: Does language prestige correlate with community size?


> Swahili a minority language? One should not confuse an ENDOGENOUS language
> with a MINORITY language. It was the langue of colonial (subaltern) rule,
and
> after independence, the language of state power in Tanzania. By the time
> Nyerere lifted it to the status of official language in Tanzania, it was
no
> longer a minority language, it was an establishment language. So when in
fact
> was it a minority language (or: against which majority language was it
ever a
> minority language)? Whether languages are 'minority' or 'majority'
languages
> can only be measured within an existing, real political system. And to my
> knowledge, Swahili doesn't qualify as a minority language throughout its
> recorded history.
> Jan Blommaert
>
> Citeren Stan & Sandy Anonby <stan-sandy_anonby at sil.org>:
>
> > Yes, Swahili is remarkable.  But though it is spoken as mother tongue by
a
> > minority, doesn't Swahili have higher prestige than the other languages
in
> > East Africa?  It was originally spread by traders from Zanzibar, who
were the
> > middlemen of the Arabs, no?  Weren't these Zanzibaris more powerful, at
least
> > economically?
> >
> > Stan
> >   ----- Original Message -----
> >   From: John Ekaju
> >   To: lgpolicy-list at ccat.sas.upenn.edu
> >   Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 6:28 PM
> >   Subject: Re: Does language prestige correlate with community size?
> >
> >
> >   Readers,
> >
> >   I should like to join the debate by making an observation that
Kiswahili
> > (originally spoken in the coastal areas of East Africa), is an  example
of a
> > language shift where people have opted to learn a minority language  for
> > national cohesion in the linguistically fragmented societies where
tribal
> > tensions are dangerously high. Most East African governments and beyond
are
> > actively encouraging Kiswahili, the de facto lingua franca, to the
status of
> > national language (eg Tanzania, Kenya and loosely in Uganda with English
the
> > language of former colonial power remaining as the official language).
> >
> >   The huge advantage of kiswahili is that unlike most African languages,
it
> > transcends the ethnic tag in the real sense, moreover, it is not
identified
> > to any threatening group.
> >
> >   John Ekaju
> >
> >   Stan & Sandy Anonby <stan-sandy_anonby at sil.org> wrote:
> >     Thank you for all those interesting points and examples! They
clearly
> > show
> >     there are various situations where people learn minority languages.
> >
> >     I see that my observations do not hold universally, but I still
think
> > they
> >     may apply to the sociolinguistic stance I've seen in Canada, Brazil
and
> >     Africa; language shift is from smaller, less prestigious languages
to
> >     larger, more prestigious ones. People belonging to the larger, more
> >     prestigious groups, rarely learn the languages of the smaller, less
> >     prestigious groups. The languages you mention are very interesting,
but
> >     their sociolinguistic millieu is different than the one I had in
mind.
> >
> >     Re the examples you give of the imperial elites, I don't think those
> > reasons
> >     exist anymore, and they don't lead to shift, displacing the language
of
> > the
> >     hearth and home.
> >
> >     The languages you mention that,! though they have fewer speakers,
are
> > higher
> >     prestige, include:
> >     Greek, Hebrew (both still prestige languages today in some circles)
> >     Persian
> >     Chinese in Japan
> >     French (Jews in Morocco today speak French for prestige reasons;
many
> >     Anglo-Saxons under the Normans did the same; but anglophones in
Canada
> >     rarely learn French, because in Canada French has lower prestige
than
> >     English)
> >     English
> >
> >     The examples you gave of Irish, Greek outside of Greece, Hebrew
outside
> > of
> >     Israel, Chinese in Japan, Welsh, and Irish, well, I don't see them
> > having
> >     that strong of an impact. In a few years, the learners will forget
> > these
> >     languages, just like I've forgotten most of my Hebrew, because this
> > language
> >     learning has almost no effect on the communities in which they live.
> >
> >     Re Guarani in Paraguay, I don't think it's a case of the majority
> > Spanish
> >     speakers switching to the minority Guarani language. It's more like
> > most
> >     Paraguayos learn Guarani in the home,! and Guarani remains a hearth
and
> > home
> >     language - a diglossia situation, as almost nobody is literate in
> > Guarani.
> >     I think that rule of crass materialism in Paraguay holds that
Guarani
> >     speakers are bilingual in Spanish, not vice versa.
> >
> >     Stan Anonby
> >
> >     ----- Original Message -----
> >     From: "Nicholas Ostler"
> >     To:
> >     Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 7:21 PM
> >     Subject: Does language prestige correlate with community size?
> >
> >
> >     > At 12:02 pm -0400 1/4/04, Stan & Sandy Anonby wrote:
> >     > >I guess "lesser languages" isn't a good term. I'm open to
> > suggestions...
> >     >
> >     > In Europe, it's common to use the term "lesser used languages", as
in
> >     > European Bureau for Lesser used Languages. "Minority languages"
too
> >     > seems fairly objective.
> >     >
> >     > >I've only worked for SIL for 2 1/2 years, so I can't say my views
> > are
> >     > >representative of the organizati! on. I've traveled quite a bit,
> > though,
> >     and
> >     > >I've noticed the less prestigious groups learn the language of
the
> > more
> >     > >prestigious ones.
> >     >
> >     > This may be analytic, since the term "prestige" characterizes the
> >     > tendency of the favoured group to attract others to assimilate to
it.
> >     > But greater population is not a universal feature of such prestige
> >     > groups. And even dominant groups can look outside themselves for
the
> >     > source of the "true class".
> >     >
> >     > >I haven't seen any examples to the contrary. I've seen
> >     > >isolated individuals who learn smaller languages, but it's pretty
> >     uncommon,
> >     > >I think. Do you have any examples of larger, dominant groups
> > learning
> >     the
> >     > >language of the smaller groups?
> >     >
> >     > Assyrians/Babylonians giving up Akkadian for Aramaic, from 8th
> >     > century BC; as a result, Akkadian, the traditional language of the
> >     > ruling class, died out.
> >     &! gt; Romans using Greek throughout their Eastern Mediterranean
> > empire,
> >     > from 2nd century BC on
> >     > Turkic conquerors in central Asia learning Persian from 10th
century,
> >     > indeed later transmitting it (as elite language) to India (e.g. in
> >     > Mughal Empire)
> >     > Japanese courtiers affecting Chinese in 8th-11th centuries (in
> >     > writing at least).
> >     > Elite learners of Greek in Western Europe since the Renaissance.
> >     > Christian clerics learning Hebrew
> >     > Russian elite speakers affecting French in 17th-19th centuries
> >     > Past language-switch by Ethiopian groups when they have changed
> >     > habitat/way of life (reported by Dick Hayward)
> >     > Deliberate learning of Guarani by Spanish-speakers in Paraguay
> >     > Afrikaans-speakers learning English in South Africa
> >     > English immigrants to Wales (esp. their children in schools,
> >     > obligatorily) learning Welsh.
> >     > Most modern learners of Irish (including many Americans).
> >     >
> >     > And there are many examples of imperial elites learning the
language
> >     > of lower-class communities (not necessarily indigenous languages):
> >     >
> >     > British army officers in 18th-20th centuries learning Urdu in
India,
> >     > Swahili in Africa etc.
> >     > Dutch administrators in 17th-18th century Ceylon, learning
Portuguese
> >     > creole (widespread among servant class);
> >     > Dutch administrators in 17th-20th century Java and East Indies
> >     > generally, learning Malay
> >     > Portuguese (especially Jesuits) in Brazil 16th-18th centuries,
> >     > learning Tupinamba
> >     >
> >     > In general, it is a remarkable fact that the Dutch never passed on
> >     > their language in their colonies (except for Cape Colony in
Africa),
> >     > although they held the East Indies as long as Britain did India.
> >     > There may be a particular sociolinguistic stance evinced here,
> >     > revealed also by the rather low profile of Dutch among the modern
> >     > European languages, despite its high population.
> >     >
> >     > >I don't like crass materialism either - that's one reason why I
live
> > in
> >     > >Brazil and don't eat at McDonalds - but it would seem to me that
> > whether
> >     we
> >     > >like it or not, this world is highly motivated by materialism. It
may
> > be
> >     > >noble to fight these world wide trends, but what's wrong with
> > admitting
> >     they
> >     > >exist?
> >     > >
> >     > >Stan Anonby
> >     >
> >     > Nothing at all, up to a point. But remember always that apparent
> >     > "universal trends" may just be passing phases of the current era.
> >     >
> >     > Nick Ostler
> >     >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> -
> >   Do you Yahoo!?
> >   Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway - Enter today
>
>
> --