LL-L: "Language varieties" 21.JUN.2000 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

 ======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 21.JUN.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: R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com]
Subject: Language varieties

Criostoir's reply is below.

My reply to some points expressed in it is below.

Criostoir, it's unpresedented for a non-subscriber to get this much "air
time," and I've been going along with it thus far only because of your
erudite contributions.  However, for this to continue I invite you to join
Lowlands-L (http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/).

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:17:44 +0100 (BST)
From: Criostoir O Ciardha <paada_please at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: Replies to replies...
To: Lowlands-L <sassisch at yahoo.com>

Dear John,

Thank you once again for your well-put thoughts
concerning my language, although I don't agree
fundamentally with much of what you have said.

> A few thoughts.
>
> 1. There are Scandinavian influences throughout
> Northern English dialects.

I have never denied this. I am not trying to imply
that Nottingham English is the sole linguistic heir of
Norse, or even that it is fundamentally Danish. Many
other langauges of the north of England retain far
more obvious and far more intense Scandinavian traits
than Nottingham English, particularly Geordie and
Yorkshire English. It should not be construed that I
am attempting to make a case for Nottingham English
being a Scandinavian language, which it is clearly
not. What interests me about my language is mainly the
Scandinavian SUBSTRATE and phonology.

Of course, there is clear evidence that Lallans
evolved from Old English that retained a Gaelic
substrate (hence the Gaelic phonology) and a Norse
influence, particularly in the dialects bordering
Northumbria. What is the position of the Norse
language once spoken in Caithness? Is that merely a
variety of Norn (Shetlandic/Orcadian) is does it owe
its development to Lallans. So far as I know, it would
have had little chance to receive any interference
from Lallans, its closest naighbours being Gaelic and
Orcadian.

> 2. We have previously noted that there are large
> differences in accent over short distances in the
West Midlands (eg around
> Birmingham). There must be
> many more influences at work in the East Midlands
> than a putative Danish
> one.

I can't think of what influences there are in East
Midlands English (whatever that is) beyond Norse.
There was a history of Frisian settlement (evidenced
is the preponderance of 'Frisby' placenames), but
beyond that I'm lost. There was relatively little
large-scale immigration at the time of the Industrial
Revolution.

Well, Birmingham English and its subdialects have
probably developed with (arguably) a great degree of
influence from Lancashire English, Manchester English,
southern English and probably Welsh-Marchland English
too, seeing as Birmingham is the linguistic
'crossroads' between all. Similarly, the Industrial
Revolution brought many settlers to the Birmingham
area, each speaking their own type of English, which
contributed to the already diverse qualities of
Birmingham English.

> 3. Most children learn a non-standard form of
> English (or German or French
> or whatever) first.

Indeed. However, with the growth of the mass media,
languages such as Nottingham English, Geordie,
Plattdeutsch, Occitan et al are being steadily
eradicated because they represent in the eyes of the
communications industry 'substandard' or 'parochial'
forms of a 'superior' language (English, German and
French respectively) and are quietly harried out of
existence or ostracised. There is no evidence that
children are learning their family language first any
longer, and even less evidence that they are
continuing to use it once they encounter the
'standard' at school and are made to feel
linguistically inept or 'inferior'.

Similarly, the 'standard' form of English has very,
very few speakers in comparison to the population.
England/Britain is quite unique in this respect. In
Greece, for example, Athens Greek is the home language
of well over half of the country's population (because
well over half live in the Athens area) and so its use
as a standard is based on sound linguistic demography
and pragmatism. In contrast, standard English is the
home language of perhaps only two or three million
people, all belonging to an arrogant ruling elite
confined to the south-east of England and London
suburbs. This is hardly a logical base for literary
standard, and can only serve to alienate those of us
who have no wish to emulate this minority group.

> 4. The broadcast media are nowadays, as I've
> commented before, much more
> "polyglot" than they used to be.

I would severely criticise this statement. Nowhere
that I know of do the broadcast media exhibit local
languages nor are they 'polyglot'in any sense of the
word. At best one finds a standard English speaker who
uses occasional 'local' phonemes, but never local
grammar, lexicon or syntax. To believe otherwise is
ridiculous, baseless and somewhat ill-informed.
Certainly around Nottingham the television presenters
all speak 'perfect' standard English, and there is no
evidence that they do speak, will speak, or even have
ever spoken, the local language.

I spent part of my early life in Cornwall and the
media there were forever alienating and offending
their audience by insisting on wilfully pronouncing
placenames incorrectly. For example, 'Redruth' is
pronounced r'dROOTH in the local English, but the
presenter pronounced it as RED-rooth; 'Penzance' is
p'nZANNSS, but was articulated on the news as
PEN-zans. This reached the level of absurdity when
local placenames began to be said in a way completely
opposite to the indigenous pronounciation,
particularly in the case of 'Launceston' which is said
as LAN-suhn locally but became arbitrarily LAWN-STON
in the mouths of television presenters. At best this
was amusing; at worst it represented arrogance and
cultural imperialism.

Therefore I would very much like to see the evidence
for which the statement of mass media polyglotism, as
I really can't think of any instance where this has
been exhibited.

> 5. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that
> Liverpudlians, for example,
> are short of self-esteem, despite the divergence of
> their dialect from the
> standard.

This is an extremely debatable point. It strikes right
at the heart of the sociological implication of local
languages. Liverpool exhibits strong local pride
matched only by Newcastle (Geordie) and perhaps
Manchester; one could see this as a resistance
reaction to years of abuse by the rest of England,
exemplified in the rash of 'Scouser' jokes and the
crude stereotype of a Liverpudlian as a thief with no
culture and a very low intellect, and of course, there
is room to argue that Liverpool was a centre of Irish
migration into England and that the atrocious
stereotypes of the Irish were transferred by the
English onto the Liverpudlians.

The Scouse dialect is held in high esteem only amongst
those Liverpudlians who retain a strong working-class
identification. The language is seen as particularly
inferior by the southern English and middle classes
and is characterised as vulgar, whining and
aggressive. Those Liverpudlians who are middle class
despise the local idiom and the local broadcast media
- like elsewhere in England - take pains to stamp it
out wherever they can so there is little proof that
Liverpudlians are bursting with enthusiasm for their
language and self-esteem.

> 6. Use of a standard language gives both poets and
> peasants a wider
> audience.

Ah, the linguistic imperialist's favourite argument!
*Laughs* Of course, there is a lot of merit in this
ideal in that it does provide a greater audience pool
for everyone. However, it fails to recognise that
whilst it "gives poets and peasants a wider audience"
its use and promotion has a correspondent adverse
effect on those who do not speak it or use it to any
great degree. There is no logical reason why standard
English should be used on a local news programme -
which only has a limited broadcast area - when the
vast majority of the audience speak a local language.
If we remove talk of what is 'dialect' and what is
'standard' we are left with a clear case of linguistic
imperialism and its enforcement throughout the
country.

As I have said before, commentators on 'dialectology'
(an imperialist term if ever I heard one) all too
often fail to realise the adverse effect on
self-esteem of 'dialectising' a local language, of
making it 'inferior' to a 'superior' standard that
represents a far away area. Whilst bilingualism is a
wonderful skill and should be encouraged wherever and
whenever possible, we must not make children feel that
they are speaking a 'wrong' version of a standard when
they are in fact speaking their own local language.

This raises questions about history as much as the
present. If Nottingham children were taught that their
language retains some Scandanavian influence, and that
they have quite a lot in common linguistically with
the Norse, or the Danes (or whoever), perhaps then
they would be more interested in their History lesson
and be motivated to seek to learn more about History,
languages and social interaction out of curiosity. It
would make lessons more RELEVANT to the life of a
child and she or he cannot help but be responsive to
it. Perhaps then their extirpated self-esteem would
return.

And I am certain that we all agree knowledge is the
greatest thing anybody can pursue, particularly in the
age of mass media 'dumbing-down'.

> North Frisian hasn't been used for ages in
> what is now Denmark.
> North Frisian is used on the west coast of
> Sleswig/Slesvig/Schleswig and
> the islands off that coast, all south of the
> Danish-German border.

Am I right in thinking that a variety of Frisian
(perhaps eastern) was spoken in the Land of Hamburg,
near the coast but away from the Frisian islands? Is
it still extant there?

Of course, the "islands off that coast" are still
geographically part of the Frisian island chain, and I
thought that Frisian had been spoken throughout that
group of isles for as far back as anyone can recall. I
never implied that Frisian had ever established itself
fully or even partially in Jutland. However, I am
seeking clarification concerning the position of
Frisian in the tiny islet of Heligoland: I remember a
passing footnote in a book on the islands around the
Baltic and there was a brief mention that at the time
of writing - sometime early in the 1920s - Frisian was
still spoken on Heligoland. Is this correct? If so,
which variety was it? I'd assume it would be northern
Frisian.

Similarly, I'm very interested in the language spoken
in areas where Frisian has been replaced by Dutch, as
I would like to learn more about the effect Frisian
could have as a substrate. Anybody care to help me out
on that one?

In conclusion, could anybody give me any details of
any studies that I could obtain which featured an
assessment of the phonology (preferrably using the
International Phonetic Alphabet) of Nottingham
English?

Further, if anyone wants to discuss any of the issues
I've raised, please do not hesitate to contact me at
paada_please at yahoo.co.uk

Well, once again, thanks for putting up with me. I'm
probably a complete irritant at this point in the
discussion, so I'll bid you a thankful adieu.

Criostoir.

----------

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

Criostoir wrote:

> Of course, there is clear evidence that Lallans
> evolved from Old English that retained a Gaelic
> substrate (hence the Gaelic phonology) and a Norse
> influence, particularly in the dialects bordering
> Northumbria.

Correck us gin it's wrang, Scots freens o the Leet.  As far as I am aware,
Scots (which I guess Criostoir meant by "Lallans"), at least the dialects
in the Lowlands, may have substrates from Gaelic as a group (Pictic?), not
from what is Scottish Gaelic as a language (which was imported from
Ireland), and some dialects of Scots may have Brethonic (Old Welsh)
substrates.

> Am I right in thinking that a variety of Frisian
> (perhaps eastern) was spoken in the Land of Hamburg,
> near the coast but away from the Frisian islands? Is
> it still extant there?

As far as anyone knows, no variety of Frisian has ever been used in
Hamborg/Hamburg, nor even very close to it.  The closest area in which
North Frisian is still used is Heligoland (Halunner Frisian), an island off
the mouth of River Elbe (an island reduced to a fraction of its size due to
British war-time and post-war bombing). The closest areas in which North
Frisian used to be used but hasn't been in centuries now, is the area north
of the mouth of River Elbe.  Thus, for example Husum used to be Frisian
(and this and other place names are clearly Frisian), but it and the
surrounding area adopted Low Saxon (Low German, to which you unfortunately
referred by one of the *German* names: _Plattdeutsch_) a long time ago.  I
assume Frisian elements can be found in those dialects.  Going west from
Hamburg toward the Netherlands border, you hit the formerly East Frisian
area where culture and to a degree ethnicity may be argued to still be
Frisian but where the Frisian language long ago gave way to Low Saxon and
strongly influenced those varieties.  (It is one of the areas in Germany in
which Low Saxon remains relatively strong and supported.)  The only remnant
of East Frisian is Sater Frisian.  It is spoken in the Saterland, an
enclave south of Eastern Friesland.  Apparently this began as an enclave of
Frisians who chose to retain Catholicism and withdrew from their large
Protestantized homeland.  Westerlauwer Frisian (often referred to as "West
Frisian" outside the Netherlands) is used in the northern part of the
Netherlands and is the only group of Frisian varieties that is still going
relatively strong.

I suggest you check out the following sites:
http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/links_frysk.htm
http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/frisian_offline.htm

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