LL-L: "Language maintenance" LOWLANDS-L, 20.JUL.2000 (05) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

 ======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 20.JUL.2000 (05) * 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: John M. Tait [jmtait at altavista.net]
Subject: LL-L: "Language politics" LOWLANDS-L, 14.JUL.2000 (01) [E]

Criostoir wrote:

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 think this is certainly true. What is perhaps even more serious, however, is
the fact that speakers of minority languages themselves often only wake up to
the situation when it is already dire, and when a large part of the population
has already lost the language, or has accepted that it is old fashioned and
the standard language is the way forward. I know of at least one case where a
young man, the son of a prominent Gaelic television executive and activist,
who was educated in Gaelic medium education, has upon reaching his teens
simply stopped speaking Gaelic and now replies in English to people who
address him in Gaelic. I return to my former point about the reasons for the
death of Norn - the reasons for minority languages dying out are complex, and
deliberate persecution by the dominant hegemony is certainly one of them. I
continue to maintain, however, that a, if not the, critical factor is that the
speakers themselves - while they constitute a considerable enough proportion
of the population to make the language viable - do not particularly care.

John M. Tait.

----------

From: John M. Tait [jmtait at altavista.net]
Subject: LL-L: "Language politics" LOWLANDS-L, 14.JUL.2000 (02) [E]

Stefan wrote:

>We could take the case of Swiss German-- before the
>First World War, the dialect was certainly spoken, but
>was stigmatized and under pressure.  A command of High
>German was used to emphasize group identity (in this
>case higher social class).  The two World Wars led all
>Swiss to want to distance themselves from Germany, and
>all Swiss touted Swiss German as a badge of Swissness,
>to demarcate themselves from that other group.  In
>both cases we see the role of identity: language
>choice helps mark who is in what group, and who isn't.

Yes - and also you may get re-identification. As Lerwegians turn to standard
English, it is likely that Shetlandic will become stigmatised as a hayseed
dialect - already there is an increased tendency to refer to it as 'the
dialect' or even just 'dialect' rather than as 'the Shetland dialect' or
'Shaetlan'. This will make it seem more undesirable to young people.

There is also, I feel, a problem in that minority speech forms which are close
to the standard variety are not seen in bilingual terms. People who speak
Shetlandic are often - because everyone who lives in Shetland has
traditionally been able to understand Shetlandic if not speak it - unable to
speak standard English with any proficiency. As more and more people become
unable to understand traditional Shetlandic, it will be increasingly seen as a
barrier to communication; and because bilingualism is not emphasised and only
standard English is taught, this will mean a simple switch to standard
English. This tendency is of course already well advanced in parts, and social
strata of other parts, of Scotland.

John M. Tait.

----------

From: John M. Tait [jmtait at altavista.net]
Subject: LL-L: "Language politics" LOWLANDS-L, 14.JUL.2000 (06) [E]

Sandy wrote:

>There also seem to be some lame excuses flying around amongst
>enthusiasts, eg "We'll get nowhere until we agree on a single orthography".
>The truth is that we'll get nowhere until we're prepared to make sacrifices.
>
Dinna forget, tho, at Welsh areddies haed a single orthography. Evenou, aa the
heid anes haes ti say is 'What is Scots' an aabodie thinks thay'v made the
only pynt at's nott. Gin thay gang ti the SNDA, say, thay'll be telt, mair or
less, at it's aathing an oniething.

John.

----------

From: John M. Tait [jmtait at altavista.net]
Subject: LL-L: "Language politics" 15.JUL.2000 (01) [E]

Colin wrate:

Democracy is at least supposed
>to be based on people making their views known to leaders, who are
>supposed to act accordingly. We saw that it didn't work, but wasn't
>it worth a try?

Unfortunately, what constitutes 'democracy' seems to be largely in the eye of
the beholder. The recent unofficial referendum about clause whatever-it-was
was lambasted as being undemocratic by groups who would support any amount of
illegal activity in the shape of refusal to pay certain taxes, for
example.(Ironically, Soutar and Sherridan are both supporters of Scots to some
extent). There is little doubt, as Colin says, that illegal activity in
Scotland would probably not be seen in a favourable light.

Incidentally, I don't think Sandy's comments about 'whingeing' are entirely
unjustified. There is, in my opinion, a certain reluctance in the Scots
language movement to thrash matters out properly and come up with a definite
case that can be presented - what exactly is meant by Scots signage being one
example.

John M. Tait.

----------

From: Roger Thijs [Roger.Thijs at village.uunet.be]
Subject: LL-L: "Mutual comprehension" LOWLANDS-L, 19.JUL.2000 (01) [E]

>Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 4:45 PM
> From: Criostoir O Ciardha [paada_please at yahoo.co.uk]
> Pepijn and Henry conversed:
> > >because Dutch is the standard language in the
> > >Netherlands, but I wonder, how much Low-Saxon
> > >influence is there in Dutch? If it weren't for
> > >Dutch being the standard, you might as well here
> > >people saying that Dutch was just some type of
> > >weird Low-Saxon ;)

I think Dutch is a particular case to some extend.

I think we do not have very much written records of Dutch (or Dutch
dialects) as _spoken_ in the _street_, before 1850 (Some writers quoted
some dialogues rather as a joke).
But we have a relatively good standardized __written__ Dutch, used for
administration and production of literary works, roughly from the end of
the 12th century on. This written Dutch was even standard for writing in
the Western part of Lower Rhenania. This does not prove that people in the
street spoke that language, but is is clear it was widely used as written
standard.
In my Limburgish plat we say "op te letter kalle" (talk the literary
language) for talking Dutch.
I'm not an historian, but it's possible Dutch became some kind of a
standard before High German did.

I'm not sure how one should explain that success of Dutch.
Some elements though:
- In the 11th - 13th century there was an ambition to maintain the
territory of Lower Lotharingia as intermediate state between France and
Germany. One of the main reason Brabant participated at (and won) the
battle of Worringen was for the succession of the (small) duchy of Limburg,
since one generally considered Limburg to inherit the pretentions to the
title of "duke of Lower Lotharingia". One of the dukes of Brabant wrote
poems and songs in early Dutch.
- The county of Flanders, formally a fief of France, maintained some
independence, I guess partly thanks to the support of the Brittish, who
were reluctant to see France controlling the North See coast
- Later Flanders and Brabant were joined with other territories as the
Burgondian Netherlands, not formally centralized, but allready with an
important position of the central (still "Diets") town of Brussels. Even
while French started to conquer a certain position, there was a need to
communicate to the people of the North, and this was generally done in just
one "Diets" version.
- At the beginning of the 17th century the focus was moved to the United
Provinces or the Republic, to which many people from the South emigrated.
If they had very much influence on the street language, I doubt, but their
presence contributed to the continuity of the written koiné
- Dutch finally became the administrative language of the Netherlands,
never died out for writing in the South, and, starting at the middle of
last century, reconquered it's territory and is now the only allowed
language for administration, education, law proceedings etc. in the North
of Belgium.

This does not mean that all Belgian Dutch speakers consider Dutch being
their real mother language. As a Limburger I feel, when switching to Dutch,
as a "French speaking fellow who would need to switch to Latin on formal
occasions and in writing".

However, nowadays people think it is to the advantage of their children
they learn to speak decent Dutch from the very beginning. This process is
on the way, and I don't think it can be reversed. We are now having some
generations speaking a more or less ridiculous literary Dutch, with some
dialect colorations. This variety is often justified by defending and
promoting the concept of intermediary languages. "Dialects" are being
replaced by "Regiolects". I think it is an temporary process though. I'm
often in Maastricht. Maastricht is in the Netherlands but somehow enclaved
in Belgian Limburg at the West river bank of the Maas. Dutch of the
Vroenhof suburb in the Netherland has allready very much inherited of
Randstad accents. Dutch from Vroenhoven (the Belgian side of the split
parish) sounds very Belgian. (Similar varieties exists in Putte, North of
Antwerp, with the border straight through the center, and even in the
completely interenclaved Baarle-Hertog Baarle-Nassau situation). I guess
varieties will fade away though in some decades... When talking to
shop-owners in Maastricht - they're Dutch - I hear they all have bought a
house in Belgium and cross the border after office hours. The Antwerp area
also "suffers" from massive Dutch immigration. These Dutch immigrants do
not downgrade to speaking the Belgian way. Their kids talk "the Dutch way"
in Belgian schools. So they slowly are resetting the standard.

Add to that, a standardized orthography, the "Siegenbeek-spelling" from the
beginning of the 19th century on, replaced by the common
Netherlandish-Belgian "De Vries-spelling" in 1865. Grammar education etc. etc.
Admit the social position of Dutch is somehow different from that of Low
Saxon, Scots, Limburgish...

This positioning was an insue of divergent views in 19th century Belgium
(making abstraction from the position of German varieties in the East of
the country):

19th century view by Walloons (often with quite some sympathy for the
"Flamand"):
1. Obviously the comon administrative language of the Country is French
2. Folkloric parish dialects, that merited some support. Some formal
acceptance since there was a de facto need for translation from the French,
and eventually vice-versa. Walloon (including Picard, Gaumais, Champenois)
dialects and Flemish (including Brabantish and Limburgish) dialects were
leveled to a similar position.
(3. Since virtually nobody in the North "spoke" really standard Dutch, it
was impossible for the Walloons to learn, eventually, anything else as
"written" Dutch, without them finally having any ability ro understand what
was said in the streets)
(If a Londoner plans to migrate to the North, would it be advisable he
studies Glascow Scots during a couple of years for getting direct
acceptance and making carreer in (the pubs of) Aberdeen?)

19thcentury view by Flemish people (at the beginning students formed a core
political position):
1. The two administrative languages of Belgium must be French and Dutch
(later this became: the administrative language of the Noth is Dutch and
that of the South is French)
2. Dialects undermine the seriousness of the position of Dutch (Dutch was
read but not really spoken as koiné in the North, while French had allready
a very strong position in the South). So one needed to do all one could for
getting the dialects repressed by Dutch.

Although this political position was/is counter-productive for the defence
of Limburgish, it may have been the only way for having "an" administrative
language, replacing French, in the North of this country.

In this context the political repositioning of Limburgish is mainly coming
from the Netherlands Limburg, that allways did what it could to maintain a
separate identity in the Netherlands. Since the romance cultural treath in
the North of Belgium is gone, there is slowly emerging some political space
for defending Limburgish (a package consisting of 16 modules is distributed
to Limburgish schools by the government of Belgian Limburg)

(Limburg is a territorial construction by the French merging several small
territories into the department of the "Lower-Maas" around 1795; Dutch
since 1815 it inherited the name of the old duchy of "Limburg", it was
Belgian from 1830 to 1839, and divided between the two countries in the
latter year)

Limburgish has it's distinctive particulaties:
plural with Umlaut, also with -er, bitonality, gerundium, vocabulary,
gender cases, ....
However:
1. Limburgish has no koiné
2. In the main literary magazine (Veldeke) everyone writes in his own
parish dialect (and signs with name + municipality)
3. The West is more influenced by Brabantish elements, the East more with
Ripuarian elements.
4. The Belgian side has inherited technical terms from within Belgium
(often walloon for agriculture,cf. "klitsjeei", or French for technical
terms e.g. for bike and car: "villow, guidon, embrayage, boite-vitesse,
roelement, phare") while the Netherlands side inherited these terms from
the Netherlands (incidentally also from Germany).
5. The linguistic area (between the ich and machen isoglosses) roughly
coïncides with the provincial borders of both Limburgs, but not completely.
For practical reasons the provincial borders are used for delimiting the
territory (for provincial subsidizing of cultural organizations as e.g.
Veldeke). The few Brabantish or Kleverlandish municipalities are hardly
disturbing. The Ripuarian influence from the East border (Kerkrade -
Kirchroa) is overwhelming though in circles as in Veldeke. I guess these
people at the extreme East, speaking roughly virtually Aachen dialect, have
a very strong need to express their identity and extensively use the
facilities offered by Veldeke.

It had a strong position as long as parishes remained homogeneous and
closed communities, each with their own dialect variant.
This situation was disturbed by:
- strong immigration since the beginning of this century towards the coal
mines in both provinces
- land parcelling, migration from the towns to the countryside. One doesn't
adjust one's dialect variant to the local standard, but rather started
talking Dutch one had learned at school.
(As a Limburger, living in Antwerp, I do not try to speake Antwerp
Brabantish. Is speak Dutch over here. Curiously, the best Antwerpish one
can hear nowadays, is the language of the North African kids in the streets
of the suburb of Borgerhout, often called Borgerocco; I wonder if a Low
Saxon speaker from Bremen, when moving to Kiel, will try to learn the
Kielish variant as first thing to do)
- the influence by Dutch language radio and TV (cf. the national news etc.)

> Sadly this seems to be the lot of many minority
> cultures in western Europe. I'm sure Plautdietschers,
> Frisians, Scots, Limburgers

Well I must say, on Belgian TV they often make Limburgers ridiculous by
trying to speak comically in a"singing" way  (that would give a gerundium
in Limburgish "zéngentèrre"), trying to imitate our bi-tonality.

 > Plautdietschers: it showed them in stereotypically
> tourist fashion, carving wood souvenirs and showing
> off their national costumes. It seems to me that no
> culture is safe from this ephemeralisation, this
> cheapening that goes in tandem with globalisation,

Well actually our own provincial tourist offices do what they can to
present us as playing on a kind of Walt Disney stage.
The most stupid thing is this one: an English writer of kid books wrote a
story of a dog that came out of a Rubens painting in Antwerp. For very
strange reasons the Japanese love that story and started inquiries about
that dog when visiting Antwerp. In the beginning people over here didn't
know where it was all about. Now the dog has a couple of monuments downtown
and one in the suburb of Hoboken. Full busloads of Japanese tourists come
visiting these monuments.
So we clearly play the game.

> > The outcome of the processes of the formation of
> > standard languages (which includes selection of
> > elements from different varieties and codification
> > of rules) is historically contingent.

It's historically curious North-Germany lacked a center as Hannover (or
Hamburg) in a strong enough position, to get it's spoken variant,
eventually a little bit levelled towards other variants, as a standard,
while the Brabant-Holland area got it done for Dutch as a kind of natural
process.

I think it's also curious Prussia, though rather in the North of Germany,
imposed rather drastically High German as standard, even with the mean of
forced migration:
cf. the Pfalz villages in the Niederrhein area
cf. the immigration from Tyroler to Recht in the Eifel (nowadays Recht is
in Belgium, but it has it's own isoglosses, distinguishing it clearly from
the surrounding Moselle-Franconian)

> Indeed. And it is perhaps ironic that many literary
> standards have in fact never been anyone's spoken
> language,

What we see nowadays, since the second world war (or since Multatuli?), is
a kind of "democratic" tendency of the spoken language of the Randstad
replacing the formal "rather literary Dutch", also in writing.

> establishment of a literary standard for West Frisian,
> where elements were chosen on the basis of difference

Well actually, kid speakers of Limburgish often learn the word first in
Dutch and, when speaking dialect, pronounce it in the dialect way, while
their parents still use the old words eventually.
I remember I heard from a "source" of a river at first in school, I
pronounced it in dialect as:
brón, bronne (Dutch: bron, bronnen). My parents had to correct me, since
their vocabulay was:
boe-en, plural bu-in (Umlaut with tonal shift). So I corrected my self (in
the sense of supporting the difference), while most kids continued with the
word they learned in school.

> 'Town Frisian' which was a Dutch-Frisian compromise
> language (isn't that a creole?) spoken in the urban
> areas of Fryslan. Is it still extant? I read of it in

In West-Limburg the influence of Kur-Köln was gradually replaced by the
influence of Brabant from the 13th century on. Brabantish phenomena were
first introduced in the towns.
A modern example: the capital town Hasselt followed the Brabantish rule of
dropping the initial h. The h still continues to be pronounced in the
municipal dialects of the villages around Hasselt.
The major towns of Hasselt and Tongeren also adopted much more French
vocabulary in their dialects as the surrounding villages.

> > Strictly linguistically spoken, there is no reason
> > that the Lowland dialects spoken some 500 years ago
> > in the area that we now call the Netherlands and
> > Belgium couldn't be dialects of German.

That's clearly an anachronism Dutch started to be some kind of a written
koiné at the end of the 12th century.

> understand) whose use is actually INCREASING, in
> contrast to languages such as Bavarian which are
> decreasing as High German is propogated through the
> media. I think the situation is the same of
> Letzebuergesch, although I can't be certain.

Luxemburg was occupied by the Germans twice this century, and during the 2d
world war, administered as part of a German Gau. Although there was some
literature in "dialect" from before the war, the promotion of an own
Moselle Franconian variant underlines political and cultural independency
from Germany.
Btw Luxemburgian kids are fed in a trilingual environment: Luxemburgish,
French and German. Legislation is in French, business life is mostly in
German en the family and street language is Luxemburgish.
(French only in the downtown Mac Donalds: you are often served by kids
coming from France)

An other reflection:

The romance-diets border is quite clear and clearly delimits languages.

Before 1960 (and since the late twenties) the administrative language in
Belgium was fixed per municipality by language censi every 10 years (since
1963 the administrative language border is fixed "for ever"). The
Limburgish speaking village of Sippenaken could not decide wether their
Limburgish was rather Dutch or rather German. So the village became French
speaking.
As a matter of fact the Low-High German linguistic border is less clear,
and this may contribute to the confusion. Is Kempen (Niederrhein) dialect
Low German or High German? Kempen is just on the Ik-Ich isogloss and both
forms are used. Or do we have Low German in the North, High German in the
South, and nothing at all in the middle. I guess a similar transition area
may confuse things between Scots and English, leaving some kind of
no-mansland between.

Waw waw (We have a national holiday tomorrow.  Hardly anybody knows what
event made us get it. Anyhow, I can have a long sleep to-morrow morning)

Regards,

Roger

==================================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
 =======================================================================