LL-L: "Language survival" (was "Language death") LOWLANDS-L, 13.FEB.2001 (04)
Lowlands-L
sassisch at yahoo.com
Tue Feb 13 21:52:46 UTC 2001
======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 13.FEB.2001 (04) * 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, Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================
From: Roger Thijs [roger.thijs at euro-support.be]
Subject: LL-L: "Language death" LOWLANDS-L, 13.FEB.2001 (03)
[parsleyij at yahoo.com]
> Subject: LL-L: "Language death" LOWLANDS-L, 13.FEB.2001 (01)
>
> In response to Gabrielle Kahn's submission, I would
> suggest that one of the keys to this is to promote
> active bilingualism from an early age.
>
> The point is that study after study has consistently
> shown that no harm whatsoever is done to children if
> they are brought up bilingually (trilingually, on the
> other hand, *is* a problem). Therefore the answer is a
> relatively simple one - bring the child up in its
> native tongue, and in the official national or
> regional language. That way the child has a good
> knowledge of its own identity and culture through its
> own language, while being at absolutely no
> disadvantage (perceived or otherwise) to fellow
> nationals - in fact in some cases it will be at an
> advantage since it will probably find learning further
> languages later in educational life easier.
I think this only contributes to survival if it is combined with strong
nationalism.
In the "Flemish movement" in Belgium one has rejected a bilingual
French-Dutch co-existence in the North of this country since this
automatically leads to social interactions to be predominantly held in
the strong language. As a result of about 150 years of political
"progress" the North is unilingual Dutch (+ it's dialect varieties,
including Limburgish)
The negative side of the story:
The quality of the French spoken by people from the North deteriorated
significantly. Companies often switch to English for events with
participation from North and South.
The positive side of the story.
Dutch did more than survive and got a quite strong position:
- Drain of Flemish people to French schools recently switched to a drain
of people from Romance (French) circles to Dutch-language schools
(especially in the Brussels area).
- When I participated, e.g. at meetings of the Belgian Standardization
Organization in the seventies, the presence of one single French
speaking participant from the South (in a group of about 20) was
sufficient for the meeting to be held in "French only". For the moment
virtually "Dutch only" is spoken and French language speakers quite
often switch to some semi-Dutch creolic variant.
The result in N. Belgium compared with the North of France (Westhoek):
1815: both: - street: dialect variants of the Dutch family
- cultural top: French
So the starting position was very similar; the result is quite different
though:
2001: N. France: - street French only (some people above 75
eventually speak a Flemish dialect in family circle)
2001: N. Belgium: - street: Dutch, Belgian Dutch and it's dialects
- cultural top: Dutch (economic top: switching
to English)
I personally think the option "Dutch-only" and "no bilinguism" saved the
persistence of Dutch and it's variants in N. Belgium.
Regards,
Roger
----------
From: Colin Wilson [lcwilson at starmail.com]
Subject: LL-L: "Language death" LOWLANDS-L, 13.FEB.2001 (03)
At 08:47 13/02/01 -0800, Ian James Parsley wrote:
>Folk,
>
>In response to Gabrielle Kahn's submission, I would
>suggest that one of the keys to this is to promote
>active bilingualism from an early age.
>I would say (though Cristoir may know more about this
>than I) that the most effective and successful Irish
>medium school in Northern Ireland is the Bunscoil at
>Armagh City. Without any government grants it gained
>consistently higher attendances than equivalent
>schools with bigger catchment areas which were
>receiving grants. It did this through successful
>marketing, and that marketing was based on the central
>aim of bringing children up bilingually.
I'm certainly in favour of children having a bi-lingual upbringing.
What I often wonder, though, is whether the type of upbringing
described in Ian James Parsley's posting does actually produce adults
who are genuinely bilingual, with an equal command of two languages.
On the face of it, it seems to me that it would more probably produce
adults who are diglossic, who are stronger in one language in certain
areas of expression, and in the other language in other areas.
I'd expect to see this in the kind of situation that I suspect
exists in Armagh, in which the language of the school is not spoken
(as a native tongue, anyway) in the majority of pupils' homes. I've
no doubt that the school teaches the children to use Irish as a medium
of learning, of literate expression, and of business, because those
things are what schools exist to teach.
On the other hand, there are other things that I'm not so certain
about. Does the school teach children how to express strong emotion,
including negative emotion such as malice, bitterness and prejudice?
Does it teach then how to express intimacy? Does it teach them how to
be profane, and to speak bluntly on matters of sex or the toilet?
Some might say that it isn't the role of schools to teach those things,
but to say that would be to miss the point. Unless the children grow
up to be adults who *are* capable of expressing those things in both
languages, even if they can use the school language beautifully
for certain other purposes, then they are not truly bilingual.
If enough children come from Irish-speaking homes for Irish to be
the language of the playground as well as the classroom, then things
aren't so bad, as the playground will teach many things that the
classroom doesn't. The children from Irish-speaking homes
will pass the "taboo" register on to the others. On the other hand,
if the language of the playground is English, or even "classroom"
Irish, then the children's command of language will not develop fully.
For these reasons, although I'd be very pleased to be shown to be
wrong, I have large doubts about the effectiveness of this kind of
solution in preserving endangered languages, unless it is supported
by other measures in the broader community. On its own, it will
certainly produce people who can express *some* things in the
endangered language: my question is, is that really enough? If
people cannot express themselves fully in a particular language,
naturally they will turn to another in which they can.
*********************************************************************
Colin Wilson the graip wis tint, the besom wis duin
the barra wadna row its lane
writin fae Aiberdein, an sicna soss it nivver wis seen
the ile capital o Europe lik the muckin o Geordie's byre
*********************************************************************
----------
From: R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com]
Subject: Administrativa
Gabriele, Ian, Roger and Colin,
Thanks for sharing your information and thoughts on this topic. I have a few
thoughts of my own in reaction, presented in a benevolently challenging mode.
Roger, you wrote:
> I think this only contributes to survival if it is combined with strong
> nationalism.
I am not sure, but on the basis of what you wrote thereafter I assume you mean
something like "ethnic/linguistic assertion" rather than "nationalism."
In the context of language competition, especially minority language problems,
"nationalism" is likely to be interpreted as a type of precursor or ingredient
of secessionism, one of the greatest fears of political states, a fear -- be
it justified or not -- that tends to lead to suppression of minority languages
and cultures. Suspicion of nationalist/secessionist motives is often used as
a pretext for suppression, even prohibition, of minority languages. In other
words, in such a context nationalism would lead to war in most cases.
Yes, ethnic/linguistic assertion, too, is sometimes seen as dangerous,
especially by those who advocate the shedding of ethnic/linguistic identity
for the sake of a solely national identity, and by those who happen to
consider a certain minority ethnicity/language inferior or otherwise
contemptible. When I tell people about my interests in minority languages and
their (re)assertion, I often get responses like "But why *ask* for
trouble/Balkanization?!" However, most people seem reassured if you explain
that assertion of a certain minority language is not accompanied by
(significant) secessionist sentiments. You would most certainly not get
central governments to support minority language rights if they as much as
suspected "nationalism."
Colin, you wrote:
> On the face of it, it seems to me that it would more probably produce
> adults who are diglossic, who are stronger in one language in certain
> areas of expression, and in the other language in other areas.
You certainly made a compelling case, at least in my humble opinion.
However, without wanting to distract from your point, let me ask you to
categorize cases that do not seem to fall into either category. I guess Low
Saxon/Low German vs German and Dutch is a case in point, and I believe Scots
vs English to be a similar or even identical case. Especially in former
times, children would first learn Low Saxon and would start to seriously
acquire the power language German (D) or Dutch (NL) with the beginning of
their schooling, since their native language is/was banned from schooling.
So, after a while they would become diglossic, as you explained: Low Saxon at
home/in the native community and German/Dutch at school/outside the native
community. However, at school they would in many cases interact with children
whose first language was German/Dutch, and they would become quite fluent in
the power language, even acquiring a convincing inventory of emotionally based
expressions. Many of them would marry "outside the language" and would speak
the power language with their spouses and perhaps even with their children.
An outsider may never realize that the power language started off as a second
language. How would you categorize such a case? Would it still be first
language vs second language? Surely it would not a case of diglossia. Or
would it?
Thanks and 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
=======================================================================
More information about the LOWLANDS-L
mailing list