LL-L: "Language politics" LOWLANDS-L, 14.JUL.2000 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

 ======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 14.JUL.2000 (01) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
 User's Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
 =======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachean, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic
 =======================================================================

From: "Ian James Parsley" <parsleyij at yahoo.com>
Subject: LL-L: "Language politics" LOWLANDS-L, 13.JUL.2000 (06) [E/LS/German]

Ron,

That was actually the reason (that bilingual signs would confuse
motorists)
given for not having Welsh signs in Wales originally. Endless surveys
were
done comparing the accident rate in Wales with other places in Europe
with
bilingual signage, and endless results showed that Wales had safer
roads.
Until the bureaucrats finally realised that the UK, in general, has the
safest roads in Europe and that there was no reason for considering
bilingual signs would make the least bit of difference!

I would say one thing, however, and that is that I think bilingual
signs are
much better (and safer) when they the languages upon them are clearly
distinguishable. This is the case in the Republic of Ireland, where the
Irish appears in italic script and the English underneath in capitals.
This
is, sadly, not the case in Wales when I did once wonder, on my way to
Monmouth, where Trefynnwy was. Trefynnwy (that may not be the exact
spelling) is, of course, Monmouth!

Incidentally, trilingual signs are used on the entry to towns in
Ladin-speaking areas of South Tyrol, but direction signs appear only in
German and Italian.

Best wishes,
---------------
Ian James Parsley

----------

From: Criostoir O Ciardha [paada_please at yahoo.co.uk]
Subject: LL-L: "Language politics" LOWLANDS-L 13.JUL.2000 (06) [E/LS/German]

Dear all,

Harald wrote (and Ron translated, thankfully):

> The regional administration has at long last granted
> permission for bilingual
> (German and Sater Frisian) village and town signs in
> Saterland; e.g.,
> "Ramsloh/Roomelse", "Scharrel/Schäddel",
> "Sedelsberg/Saidelsbierich", and
> "Strücklingen/Strukelje".  Previously, permission
> had not been granted, the
> reason given being that such bilingual signs would
> distract motorists ...

This is of course a welcome development, and should be
applauded. What I find unbearably sad - I would like
to know others' views on the issue - is that
'official' bilingualism often comes too late to
support the minority language realistically, and is
often almost a deliberate afterthought introduced when
the language has reached its terminal phase, a case of
shutting the stable door once the horse has bolted.

I point to the experience of Breton in Brittany as an
only too familiar example of this global policy:
Breton was spoken by at least a million people in
Brittany before the Second World War, and had resisted
relatively successfully heavy French hegemony since
the eighteenth century (it was for most of the 20th
Century the only Celtic tongue that retained over a
million speakers). However, in the fifty years since,
Breton has effectively been confined to the older
generation as Brittany has become more and more
forcefully integrated into a centralised French state,
and French-only language policies enforced. When there
was the pan-European linguistic minority 'enlightment'
in the post-1945 period - which saw recognition of
west Frisian, Flemish, Sorbian, Faroese, Welsh, Scots
Gaelic, Catalan, Euskara et al - the French state
stubbornly and vindictively refused to relax its
Frankification programme with the result that there is
only one Breton-language high school (compare
something like fifty for Welsh) and the estimated
proportion of Breton speakers in Brittany has
collapsed to around 350,000-450,000 (the French refuse
to include language questions in censuses), declining
all the time as the older generation dies off.

French government reaction to this has been to 'allow'
bilingual road signs in Breton-speaking areas. The
more I think about it, the more I get depressed,
frustrated and angered by the thought of a central
government 'allowing' superficial 'bilingual' measures
in bilingual areas. I think perhaps the history of the
cruel treatment of minority languages in western
Europe has shown that if minority language speakers
sit back and rely on the 'benevolence' of a central
government to institute bilingual policies, nothing is
done until the 'threat' from the local tongue has been
eradicated; i.e., when it is in irreversible decline.

It seems to be a favourite campaign tactic of
supposedly 'thoughtful' political parties to dredge up
some amazingly 'liberal' (which turns out to be
curiously not liberal at all) concession to local
sympathies to win votes and then promptly accidently
'forget' to fulfil these promises once in office. And
what do we do? We just shrug our shoulders and go,
"Oh, well... never mind..." Case examples: Chirac's
promise of a Basque department in France (the Basque
area there is one third of the department of
Pyrenees-Atlantiques); the assuage of Sorbian
anxieties concerning German reunification etc., etc.

I recall from personal experience when I lived in
Cornwall (where I was a member of a Cornish-language
pressure group)the sheer *effort* that was required to
get even the slightest attention from officialdom
concerning the Cornish language. One incident was
particularly depressing: Cornwall applied for
'Objective One' status within the European Union but
it had to develop a 'marketing' strategy to procure
the funding. They promised at a number of meetings to
make the package bilingual in Cornish/English, thereby
highlighting Cornwall's status as a Celtic country and
an area at cultural variance with England. However,
ignoring our own advice and the way Scots Gaelic and
Welsh had been used to attain this funding in Scotland
and Wales, the colonial Council came up with an
embarrasingly poor English-only leaflet with the
unbelievably naff slogan of 'CORNWALL NOW'. Needless
to say, we considered quite a fair bit of violent as
well as non-violent direct action.

The issue I am trying to raise is that in minority
language areas very often local government is
dominated by central government placemen from outside
the region (as in the case of Cornwall) or ignorant
unionists (and I use the term lightly to refer to
those locals who 'colloborate' with the central
government and seek to diminish the cultural vibrancy
and identity of the minority area) whose only goal in
life seems to be the extirpation of local speech and
the enforcement of 'national' standards. I would very
much like to hear of your own experiences,
particularly where agitations have suceeded in
relegating the 'national' language to the second
tongue and the local language to the first (of which I
am sure there are very, very few examples).

There seems to be a mindset among ourselves in the
minority language community to fear agitation and
non-violent direct action to institute a status for
our languages, for fear of being 'extreme' or -
perhaps more pertinently - 'not moderate'. Perhaps the
most successful examples of the reintroduction of
status for local languages has been Wales, and the
situation there was only achieved when members of
Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg refused to pay bills in
English, attend or recognise courts that used English,
or otherwise allow the English language to invade and
intrude upon what might well as be monoglot areas.
Similarly, it took the action of one man - Gwynfor
Evans - going on hunger strike that forced the English
government to go through with its promise for a
Welsh-language television channel which at the time
they were attempting to renege upon.

One might also point to the activities of Comhairle
nan Eilean in Na hEileanan an Iar (the Western Isles)
which went out on a limb daringly to designate itself
an "officially bilingual community" in which slightly
more status is given to Scots Gaelic than to English.
As a result of this effort - which was not sanctioned
by the London government - Na hEileanan an Iar seems
to be holding its Gaelic well, and most Comhairle nan
Eilean business is conducted in Scots Gaelic rather
than English.

It seems to me ridiculous that a minority language
should wait on the perceived (often very, very
wrongly) benevolence of a central government that
considers Frisian, Plautdietsch, Limburgs, Shetlandic
et al peripheral, anachronistic peasant languages
worthy of nothing more than extirpation (read
"modernisation") and replacement (read "cultural
strengthening") with the 'better' and more
'appropriate' 'national' language. The experience of
Brittany and Wales pre-1993 shows that bilingual
roadsigns are very often a symptom of official
neglect, and that little store or faith should be
placed in a national government that so graciously
'allows' a local language to be used to direct
traffic. Bilingual roadsigns mean nothing if the said
language is not supported, promoted and encouraged as
well. It's a sop to local conscience that does little
to combat the real problem of excessively centralised
linguistic empires.

> Thanks, Harald, for giving me the giggles.  The
> excuses those bureaucrats come up with for the sake
> of sabotaging minority language rights ...
> It's weird enough that permission must be requested
> in the first place.  Hey! Since Low Saxon is used in
> that area as well, why not go one step farther and
> request permission for *trilingual* signs, e.g.,
> "Sedelsberg/Saidelsbierich/Seidelsbarg"?

I'd go further, Ron - I would assert that 'requesting
permission' is still oppression. Oppression is
oppression still, even if it comes with smiles,
subsidies and nominal official 'effort' evidenced in
bilingual or trilingual roadsigns.

What offends me most is that local linguistic
communities are supposed to be grateful that their
rights have been 'allowed'!

Criostoir.

----------

From: R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com]
Subject: Language politics

Criostoir,

You wrote:

> I'd go further, Ron - I would assert that 'requesting
> permission' is still oppression. Oppression is
> oppression still, even if it comes with smiles,
> subsidies and nominal official 'effort' evidenced in
> bilingual or trilingual roadsigns.

Obviously you were in a very serious and angry mood there, and I can relate to
that.  This, however, may have led you to miss the sarcasm (as in
"annoyance-based jesting") in my "suggestion," sarcasm directed at the common
tactic of confusing and sabotaging minority rights issues with bureaucratic
shenanigans.  Sure!  The mere fact that minority language communities have to
*request* "special" permission to use their languages can be argued to be part
and parcel of oppression.  One way of bringing this out clearly is to swamp
the relevant departments with requests, usually resulting in lame excuses for
not granting these "special" deals, many of which are nothing more than
window-dressing symbols anyway.  Did not the campaign to permit bilingual
signs in Wales involve some swamping with requests?  (I vaguely remember Sandy
explaining that quite a while ago.)

Below is a repeat of my English digest of a story I posted on July 30, 1999:

"MUCH TO-DO ABOUT SPELLING
Spelling problems threatened to thwart an effort to give a Low Saxon (Low
German) name to a kindergarten in Lower Saxony's Syke. Being situated in a
part of town in which many streets have Low Saxon names, children, their
educators and their parents intended to name the facility "Lütte Lüd" ("Little
Folks"). The town council was not so quick to grant permission. It insisted on
"correct spelling" of this name in a language that has several recommended
spelling systems but hitherto no officially recognized one. Bureaucrats
researched, inquired and surveyed. At long last official approval was granted
for the spelling "Lütte Lüüd." A naming ceremony will take place in September.
Regine Lindenschmidt, the kindergarten director, insists that this choice of
name is not just some gimmick but is symbolic for the facility's ongoing
effort to introduce local language and culture to the children, many of whom
are not ethnically German."

Regards,

Reinhard/Ron

==================================END===================================
 You have received this because your account has been subscribed upon
 request. To unsubscribe, please send the command "signoff lowlands-l"
 as message text from the same account to
 <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or sign off at
 <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 =======================================================================
 * Please submit contributions to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
 * Contributions will be displayed unedited in digest form.
 * Please display only the relevant parts of quotes in your replies.
 * Commands for automated functions (including "signoff lowlands-l") are
   to be sent to <listserv at listserv.linguistlist.org> or at
   <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
 * Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other
   type of format, in your submissions
 =======================================================================