<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type"
content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<big>(Apologies for cross-posting)<br>
<br>
Esteemed colleagues...<br>
<br>
I have a terminological query.<br>
<br>
In many cases, a so-called 'minority language' is actually spoken by
the numerical majority, in a given polity. The following 2002 paper by
Rajeshwari Pandharipande
is useful on this point:<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://www.unesco.org/most/vl4n2pandhari.pdf">http://www.unesco.org/most/vl4n2pandhari.pdf</a><br>
<br>
</big><big>This discussion is picked up subsequently in 2008 by Rakesh
Bhatt and Ahmar Mahboob:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=O2n4sFGDEMYC&pg=PA132">http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=O2n4sFGDEMYC&pg=PA132</a><br>
<br>
</big><big>Pandharipande reviews d</big><big>ifferent permutations of
speaker numbers on the one hand, and domains of use on the other. A
matrix table by </big><big>Srivastava
</big><big>is presented showing four possible categories, for which </big><big>Pandharipande
gives
</big><big>examples from India:<br>
<br>
"(a) ['majority'] powerful
as well as majority (e.g. Marathi in Maharashtra State); (b) ['Janta']
powerless
but majority (e.g. Kashmiri in Jammu and Kashmir); (c) ['elite']
minority but
powerful (English in all states); (d) ['minority'] minority and
powerless (tribal
languages in all states)."<br>
<br>
Pandharipande goes on to talk about "functional load" of a language -
in relation to domains of use - but in the end seems to return
to "minority language" as a catch-all term for both (b) and (d). For me
this seems incomplete, especially coming after a (useful) critique
of the term "minority language". Meanwhile Srivastava's four terms I
find difficult
because they maintain the words "minority" and "majority". Given that
these two words already have a common meaning in terms of </big><big>numerical
ratios</big><big>, it seems all too easy for them to overshadow domains
of use, which </big><big>Srivastava intends to include</big><big>.<br>
<br>
I think it would be useful to have descriptively coherent catch-all
terms for (a) and (c)</big><big> on the one hand, and (b) and (d) on
the other, in order to foreground the distinction of relative
'usefulness' irrespective of speaker numbers. This is not least because
there are a lot of </big><big>terms
</big><big>already </big><big>out there which aim for this
distinction, but are just a bit too specific to a certain subset of
cases.</big><big>
"Minority
language" is one. "Endangered language" also springs
to mind. These make sense in some cases, but are over-applied in the
literature and lose their usefulness the thinner they are spread. Other
terms I've come across over the years include "H(igh) and L(ow)",
"dominant", "native", "national", "traditional", "vernacular",
"standard", and so on. All of these are politically and linguistically
specific to a certain subset of examples (or interpretations thereof).<br>
<br>
So, I'm looking for a pair of terms to capture a central distinction:<br>
1. Languages or varieties that are used/useful in <b>more</b> domains
than
other languages in the same polity, regardless of speaker numbers or
official status;<br>
2. </big><big>Languages or varieties that are used/useful in <b>fewer</b>
domains than other languages </big><big>in the same polity</big><big>,
</big><big>regardless of speaker numbers or official status</big><big>.<br>
<br>
I </big><big>exclude </big><big>number of speakers and official
status because these don't necessarily correlate with </big><big>the
utility of
languages (and I mean this in quite bluntly utilitarian terms).<br>
<br>
</big><big></big><big>The best I can come up with so far is "major" and
"minor" languages.
This helps to nudge the focus away from numbers as such, by noticeably
snapping off the "-ity" from the end of both. One problem is that this
could be seen as pejorative. I always think that a term is only </big><big>pejorative
if
it's
intended that way, but that's a separate debate entirely!</big><br>
<big><br>
Does anyone have any thoughts? Has this problem already been solved and
I missed it?<br>
<br>
I apologise for what has turned out to be a very long email. In my
defense, it started off longer and I made it shorter. By way of a
reward to anyone who is still reading, here's a relaxing song:<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4rG5nB7wB0">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4rG5nB7wB0</a><br>
<br>
<br>
Dave<br>
<br>
--<br>
Dr. Dave Sayers<br>
Honorary Research Fellow<br>
School of the Environment and Society<br>
Swansea University<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:d.sayers@swansea.ac.uk">d.sayers@swansea.ac.uk</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://swansea.academia.edu/DaveSayers">http://swansea.academia.edu/DaveSayers</a><br>
<br>
</big>
</body>
</html>