LL-L: "Language maintenance" LOWLANDS-L, 05.MAR.2001 (02) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
  L O W L A N D S - L * 05.MAR.2001 (02) * 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: Criostoir O Ciardha [paada_please at yahoo.co.uk]
Subject: LL-L: "Language maintenance" LOWLANDS-L, 04.MAR.2001 (02) [E]

A chairde,

Sandy wrote:

> You say you oscillate, but the rest of the email
> seems to be
> about the idea that standard languages are an evil
> which
> should be abolished, mainly because literacy and
> good
> economics aren't as important as we have been led to
> believe.

Not at all. I don't believe "good economics"
(economics can be anything less than exploitative of
someone somewhere along the line...? News to me) is
important. It seems to me that Sandy reveals not a
little of the indoctrination of the state (of which I
am also guilty, far more than most). The economic
argument has been used to deride and disempower mother
tongues and their communities since the advent of the
nation-state in the 19th Century. Before that it was
(and remains) the excuse for outright genocide ("the
Indians are in the way of progress", "Irish social
systems are a liability" "The Caribbeans receive us
like gods and make excellent slaves"). I feel it is
impossible to isolate history from the present,
particularly when the same arguments are trotted out
to justify continued degradation of "minority"
communities (they may actually be numerical majorities
but as they do not run the state they are political
"minorities").

> Are you seriously suggesting that I should be
> writing this
> email in my local dialect?

I am. Why not?

> Or can you imagine me writing an engineering report
> in work
> in my local dialect, where "ca" = "can't" and
> suchlike?

I can indeed. This is the consensual oppression issue
I raised elsewhere on this list. What is really
stopping you from producing a bilingual document if
you wish your mother tongue to have equal standing? If
you believe that your mother tongue has validity and
you are proud of it and want to use it more, you would
be writing that engineering report in it. As it stands
you are not trying to make any point by writing your
report in "standard English" (at least I presume you
are writing in that) and that is your perogative, too.

I could write this in my mother tongue if I had the
ability and the patience to render sound to letter. At
present I don't have the time and my profferments
would not be appreciated, anyway.

Caxton's "egges" versus "eyren" paradigm is only
relevant in the context of statism and cultural
imperialism. There is no reason why two speakers who
can communicate broadly but do not share a mother
tongue cannot dare to have enough patience to learn
and contribute to widening each others' knowledge
through trying that little bit harder. This is the
Norse/Old English compromise situation we discussed a
year or so ago. We can all understand if we make the
effort and effort is reciprocated.

> As you know, people in multicultural situations
> normally do
> have a lingua franca of some sort, such as Latin in
> mediaeval
> and renessaince Europe, Low Saxon in northern
> European ports,
> and sign language in North America,

These have different contexts. Latin as the lingua
franca was brought to the fore as a compromise
language between Christians of Europe; Low Saxon as a
compromise between merchants and mercantile residents.
Latin represented a social compromise, Low Saxon a
commercial one. In any case the situation developed as
the mother tongues of the users were all thoroughly
unintelligible (for example, it is highly unlikely
that a Croat could understand Irish or a Pole Basque,
to take two extremes) and this left them the logical
resort of the liturgical "standard". This
multilingualism was in any case limited to a small
bourgeoisie and its religious offshoots.

I would argue that this might not necessarily be a
good thing given that Latin in this context was used
to maintain socio-economic and political relationships
amongst feudal states which, by their very existence,
denied human rights to a large part of Europe's
population. Thus having turned the tables we see that
the Renaissance lingua franca was an imperialist tool
of a minority class and so not as amazing as at first
it might appear.

Similarly, Low Saxon represented a commercial
interest, not a human one. It was the tool of economic
hegemony and I find it difficult to recognise the
validity of such things.

Sign language is rightly presented as positive. I
wholeheartedly endorse this. I find little
contradiction in promoting sign language as it harms
very few and indeed provides a communicative lifeline
to a number of people who otherwise would be
communicatively indigent. Sign language is thus not a
lingua franca in the sense Sandy gives for his
previous two examples.

> An overlying lingua franca is just
> another aspect
> of human language.

But one has to recognise the human context and whether
or not this "aspect" inferiorises others or otherwise
infringes on the full enjoyment of the human
experience for those who suffer its consequences.
Nonetheless what you say is valid.

> It's true
> nevertheless that in most areas of England the most
> of the
> people themselves would never go as far as insisting
> that the
> local dialect should be taught...

This is entirely true. Unfortunately the
inferiorisation of mother tongues embitters a
powerlessness in the victim community which makes it
difficult for them to reclaim their esteem. Indeed,
many are so thoroughly broken by their inferiorisation
that, fearing change (their own experience being that
change is hurtful), they may even oppose any moves to
benignly promote their own speech.

> Perhaps there's a matter of definition here - might
> it be true
> that a dialect that's taught would soon cease to be
> a dialect?

See my argument concerning "mother tongue" versus
"dialect". No mother tongue is static and we must be
willing to accept evolution in language. I would argue
too that no-one can ever destroy a "mother tongue"
insofar as it is a personal, individual language. We
all have our own nuances even within what is accepted
as "dialect" that mark us out as vibrant within our
own community. It is true that mother tongues as
community languages (i.e., "dialects") are prone to
aggressive linguistic rigor mortis as conservatives
try to preserve and freeze the tongue when in fact
that should be embracing its continuing evolution.
Language nostalgia cripples and creates slaves to what
was, rather than empowering and creating a foundation
for what will be.

The education system is a "murder machine" (to
paraphrase Pádraig Pearse) but the beauty of a mother
tongue is that its situational ubiquity (even in
school children "lapse" to their mother tongue in
friendship and playground situations no matter what
language they are taught or is beaten into them,
whether it be "standard English", "standard French",
or "standard Martian") makes it perfectly suitable to
linguistic resistance. It is only when the speaker is
*unaware* that they are speaking a special way, their
own way, their proper way, that they begin to get
sucked into cycles of inferiorisation and linguistic
self-loathing which

> I think that if my own dialect was taught in school,
> an ever-
> expanding vocabulary and grammatical artifice would
> soon start
> to replace our native idiom.
>
> Sandy
> http://scotstext.org
> A dinna dout him, for he says that he
> On nae accoont wad ever tell a lee.
>                           - C.W.Wade,
>                     'The Adventures o McNab'

----------

From: Criostoir O Ciardha [paada_please at yahoo.co.uk]
Subject: LL-L: "Language maintenance" LOWLANDS-L, 04.MAR.2001 (02) [E]

A chairde,

Sandy wrote:

> You say you oscillate, but the rest of the email
> seems to be
> about the idea that standard languages are an evil
> which
> should be abolished, mainly because literacy and
> good
> economics aren't as important as we have been led to
> believe.

Not at all. I don't believe "good economics"
(economics can be anything less than exploitative of
someone somewhere along the line...? News to me) is
important. It seems to me that Sandy reveals not a
little of the indoctrination of the state (of which I
am also guilty, far more than most). The economic
argument has been used to deride and disempower mother
tongues and their communities since the advent of the
nation-state in the 19th Century. Before that it was
(and remains) the excuse for outright genocide ("the
Indians are in the way of progress", "Irish social
systems are a liability" "The Caribbeans receive us
like gods and make excellent slaves"). I feel it is
impossible to isolate history from the present,
particularly when the same arguments are trotted out
to justify continued degradation of "minority"
communities (they may actually be numerical majorities
but as they do not run the state they are political
"minorities").

> Are you seriously suggesting that I should be
> writing this
> email in my local dialect?

I am. Why not?

> Or can you imagine me writing an engineering report
> in work
> in my local dialect, where "ca" = "can't" and
> suchlike?

I can indeed. This is the consensual oppression issue
I raised elsewhere on this list. What is really
stopping you from producing a bilingual document if
you wish your mother tongue to have equal standing? If
you believe that your mother tongue has validity and
you are proud of it and want to use it more, you would
be writing that engineering report in it. As it stands
you are not trying to make any point by writing your
report in "standard English" (at least I presume you
are writing in that) and that is your perogative, too.

I could write this in my mother tongue if I had the
ability and the patience to render sound to letter. At
present I don't have the time and my profferments
would not be appreciated, anyway.

Caxton's "egges" versus "eyren" paradigm is only
relevant in the context of statism and cultural
imperialism. There is no reason why two speakers who
can communicate broadly but do not share a mother
tongue cannot dare to have enough patience to learn
and contribute to widening each others' knowledge
through trying that little bit harder. This is the
Norse/Old English compromise situation we discussed a
year or so ago. We can all understand if we make the
effort and effort is reciprocated.

> As you know, people in multicultural situations
> normally do
> have a lingua franca of some sort, such as Latin in
> mediaeval
> and renessaince Europe, Low Saxon in northern
> European ports,
> and sign language in North America,

These have different contexts. Latin as the lingua
franca was brought to the fore as a compromise
language between Christians of Europe; Low Saxon as a
compromise between merchants and mercantile residents.
Latin represented a social compromise, Low Saxon a
commercial one. In any case the situation developed as
the mother tongues of the users were all thoroughly
unintelligible (for example, it is highly unlikely
that a Croat could understand Irish or a Pole Basque,
to take two extremes) and this left them the logical
resort of the liturgical "standard". This
multilingualism was in any case limited to a small
bourgeoisie and its religious offshoots.

I would argue that this might not necessarily be a
good thing given that Latin in this context was used
to maintain socio-economic and political relationships
amongst feudal states which, by their very existence,
denied human rights to a large part of Europe's
population. Thus having turned the tables we see that
the Renaissance lingua franca was an imperialist tool
of a minority class and so not as amazing as at first
it might appear.

Similarly, Low Saxon represented a commercial
interest, not a human one. It was the tool of economic
hegemony and I find it difficult to recognise the
validity of such things.

Sign language is rightly presented as positive. I
wholeheartedly endorse this. I find little
contradiction in promoting sign language as it harms
very few and indeed provides a communicative lifeline
to a number of people who otherwise would be
communicatively indigent. Sign language is thus not a
lingua franca in the sense Sandy gives for his
previous two examples.

> An overlying lingua franca is just
> another aspect
> of human language.

But one has to recognise the human context and whether
or not this "aspect" inferiorises others or otherwise
infringes on the full enjoyment of the human
experience for those who suffer its consequences.
Nonetheless what you say is valid.

> It's true
> nevertheless that in most areas of England the most
> of the
> people themselves would never go as far as insisting
> that the
> local dialect should be taught...

This is entirely true. Unfortunately the
inferiorisation of mother tongues embitters a
powerlessness in the victim community which makes it
difficult for them to reclaim their esteem. Indeed,
many are so thoroughly broken by their inferiorisation
that, fearing change (their own experience being that
change is hurtful), they may even oppose any moves to
benignly promote their own speech.

> Perhaps there's a matter of definition here - might
> it be true
> that a dialect that's taught would soon cease to be
> a dialect?

See my argument concerning "mother tongue" versus
"dialect". No mother tongue is static and we must be
willing to accept evolution in language. I would argue
too that no-one can ever destroy a "mother tongue"
insofar as it is a personal, individual language. We
all have our own nuances even within what is accepted
as "dialect" that mark us out as vibrant within our
own community. It is true that mother tongues as
community languages (i.e., "dialects") are prone to
aggressive linguistic rigor mortis as conservatives
try to preserve and freeze the tongue when in fact
that should be embracing its continuing evolution.
Language nostalgia cripples and creates slaves to what
was, rather than empowering and creating a foundation
for what will be.

The education system is a "murder machine" (to
paraphrase Pádraig Pearse) but the beauty of a mother
tongue is that its situational ubiquity (even in
school children "lapse" to their mother tongue in
friendship and playground situations no matter what
language they are taught or is beaten into them,
whether it be "standard English", "standard French",
or "standard Martian") makes it perfectly suitable to
linguistic resistance. It is only when the speaker is
*unaware* that they are speaking a special way, their
own way, their proper way, that they begin to get
sucked into cycles of inferiorisation and linguistic
self-loathing which results in them actively working
*against* their mother tongue and in favour of the
imperial language.

In response to Sandy's very welcome anecdote, I would
proffer that if my mother tongue had been taught in my
school we might not have become so warped by the
relative unfreedom of our area: we may have even
foregone our bitterness and our hatred to have made
positive moves toward self-esteem and self-government.

Go raibh maith agaibh,

Críostóir.

----------

From: Criostoir O Ciardha [paada_please at yahoo.co.uk]
Subject: LL-L: "Language maintenance" LOWLANDS-L, 04.MAR.2001 (03) [E]

A chairde,

Once again, thanks to Sandy for being my sparring
partner and for his cogent points and to Ron for his
strong encouragement and for his own excellent
contributions. I hope that Seattle has by now lurched
back to teeming metropolitanism, and that normal
service resumed as soon as was possible.

An immediate issue I would like to raise in
clarification of my arguments is the usage of the term
"dialect". As I alluded to previously, I consider this
term to represent a symptom of the inferiorisation of
the local speaker with regards to the statist centre.
To refer to one's speech as "dialect" internalises a
relative inferiority and an inference of divergence
that locks the user into the belief that they speak a
peripheral variant of the "standard" central
government language rather than their own equally
powerful language. To this end I will use "mother
tongue" in all instances as that best represents my
thinking on the issue: whether we call a mother tongue
a "dialect", a distinct language, a "variant" or
whatever we cannot ignore or neglect the fact that it
is the primary means of communication for the user in
question.

To clarify my position somewhat I will tell the list
that my primary interest in this strand of the
discussion is sociolinguistics and the political
fall-out of language policies. Specifically I take up
the reins on the question of the human cost of
linguistics and government approaches to their peoples
and languages. It is a subject I am passionate about
and I mean no offence to anyone on this list.

Ron wrote:

> As far as I am concerned, any move that brings
> closely related varieties
> together while respecting their individual integrity
> is a move in the right
> direction and is likely to be empowering.

I agree, but I feel this is far more theory than
practice. There exists a saddening gulf between what
we want and what we get, always. It seems to me that
notions of "standards" nearly always end up pursuing a
socio-politico-linguistic agenda of inferiorisation in
tandem with uniformising a people. Standardisation
involves elevation of certain forms of speech - not
necessarily all from one mother tongue - with the
unwitting consequence that other forms are (perhaps
unwillingly) delegitimised and made socially derelict.

In my view I believe it is near impossible to maintain
linguistic equality within a pluralist standard.
Practically a standard devised to promote liberty and
equality may be promulgated but as soon as it is
taught in schools teachers might begin to inferiorise
non-standard speech. Thus language liberation can only
work in tandem with a freeing of minds from a need to
inferiorise others to superiorise oneself. Standards
are counter to this insofar as the inference remains
that it is primus inter pares and, as such, "better".
What we need to work toward, I feel, is parities of
esteem between all mother tongues where people may
feel free to write and speak as they choose -
communicate their way - and so no longer feel
worthless, improper, inferior and "wrong". Language is
a social tool, not a scientific one. We cannot look at
language without its social context and the effect it
has on ordinary people.

> The
> alternative would be
> perpetuation of current disintegration, segregation
> and disunity, which are
> the main causes of weakness and thus are the main
> threats to the survival
> in the case of Low Saxon at least.

I don't feel everything can be as pessimistic as this
unless we sit back and give in. Whilst I am ignorant
to the situation with Low Saxon I would argue that we
should be propogating ideas such as diversity,
co-existence, inherent virtue in linguistic plurality,
and "win-win scenarios" where multilingualism (the
learning of mother tongues other than one's own -
including "multilingualism") is seen as positive and
worthwhile. There is no need to promote language
extirpation and language hierarchy.

It is often the case that reactionaries misinterpret
language rights (such as the installation of mother
tongues as official government languages in Lander and
homelands) as truculence. That is their problem and
not ours, and we should not kow-tow to their
prejudices: instead we should concentrate on
presenting the truth of the situation, which is a
fundamental human rights issue. We must empower
ourselves and not wait for "grants" of power: this
merely reinforces our inferiorisation and a delegation
of responsibilities for our lives to a "higher power"
(i.e., the central government, an intransigent state
parliament, etc.) which is consensual oppression and
might indeed be interpreted as linguistic masochism. I
have argued for direct action all my life and in a
Lowlands-L context this may merely mean civil
disobedience and a taking up of every opportunity no
matter how small or large to increase the profile of
Scots, Low Saxon, Zeeuws, etc. To me this consensual
powerlessness is yet another factor of
centre-peripherary inequalisation, state hegemony and
the abolition of resistance and fundamental rights.

Mother tongues may be beaten out of existence - as
most European states tried to do during the 19th and
20th Centuries in a hurtful attempt to promote staid
uniformity and "rational imperialism" (i.e., "English
people speak English", "Promoting a language other
than the state language is disloyalty", "Pull together
and create a state for Croats" etc.). However, acts of
linguistic resistance can stem the tide. I am in
favour, as I have always been, of tenacious
intransigent refusal on language issues vis-a-vis the
central government, because it is a matter of human
rights. As soon as one submits to the central
government linguistically one is giving up one's
power.

> many, probably
> most, of its speakers would continue to believe that
> their languages are
> not worthy of being written, are not good enough for
> "serious" literature,
> are really just stunted, inferior, low-class
> varieties of the dominant
> languages,

This is the key issue. Hope lies in convincing
speakers that their mother tongue is unique, rich,
diverse, capable, powerful, special and, above all,
viable. This is done at a grass roots, non-political
level. It is down by steadily increasing the presence
of the mother tongue on hand-written signs in shops,
in schools, in daily speech - in daring to be
different and in taking pride in the communicative
ability of community. Taking power does not
neccesarily mean mass rallies and violence - it can be
mundane acts of empowerment such as being patient with
a child in the mother tongue and assuring them despite
what they hear that their speech *is* "proper" and
*is* "correct" and *is* equal. Teach the child
language history: make them proud of their phonology
and its antecedents. Explain why their mother tongue
is that little bit different and how it is. Give them
food for thought. Give them the opportunity to
disbelieve statist propaganda that is rammed down
their throat at school and in the media.

Perhaps we should create a new term for "mother
tongue" to break away from the connotations of
"variant" and "dialect". "Home language" perhaps? As
long as these terms remain and we are forced to argue
through them, our arguments become skewed toward a
certain structuralist agenda.

> Furthermore, we need to define what we mean by
> "standardization."  Are we
> going to appoint a panel of "experts" in charge of
> engineering a new
> standard language variety?

I would very much hope not. If there should be any
standard at all then it should be organic, evolving,
anti-static. No mother tongue stays the same and the
standard has to be as vibrant and democratic as
possible. The installation of absolute power in a few
experts is illogical and contrary to the aims of this
list, I feel. It simply augments the distance between
the academic and the real and is of no practical
relevancy, even if it does make a good encyclopaedia
entry. Remember that the core of all we do revolves
around living, breathing, laughing human beings. Not a
dead tree's bleached flesh. Not paper and pens and
pedantism.

> Or are we content with
> merely "kick-starting" a
> unification process in a concerted effort, with
> openness to input from
> anyone?  I would be quite happy with no more than
> the latter.

Absolutely! This is the most positive point I have
ever seen on Lowlands-L. Language is a community that
we all take part in and *everyone* has the equal right
to contribute. Ideally there should be no rules and
rigidity and stifling. As I said, people make or break
a tongue and co-operation in building a "lingua
franca" or a compressed "book language" (recalling
Colin's contribution on stigmatised Finnish "book
language" which I wholeheartedly endorse) is vital.
Further, there should be the fundamental
understanding, as demonstrated with Finnish, that the
"book language" is not real but rather a compromise
between diverse realities of equal standing. This is
more important than anything in making sure that the
standard is subverted to the people and not
vice-versa. It will also preclude the inferiorisation
I abhor.

I shall leave the issue of orthography to the rest of
the list. However, my opinions are guided by the
life-experience of a Frisian friend (now resident in
Australia) who was unable to read Western Frisian,
Northern Frisian or Eastern Frisian. The first was the
result of oppressive language policies in the
Netherlands which meant that she was unable to read
her mother tongue; I would argue the other two were
the result of statist policies in Germany and Denmark,
which sought to give a strange look to the Frisian
spoken there and so drive a wedge between Frisians and
negate any possibilities of secession. There should
also be mother tongue rehabilitation where the elderly
or the older members of the community learn to read
and write their own speech. They should not be
condemned as being "too old to learn".

I do find it somewhat absurd, however, that Scots
shares its orthography with English even though the
pronunciation rarely converges. Is this English
colonisation of Scots? A more faithful orthography
might aid linguistic self-determination.

> Yes, I do dislike, even hate, any form of elitism
> and chauvinism, but I
> dislike any form of segregation or apartheid just as
> much.  If we all had
> to be confined to our own home dialects and were not
> allowed to
> linguistically mix and gradually create common
> ground, would this not be a
> case of linguistic segregation, of language
> apartheid?  Is Críostóir not at
> least indirectly advocating it with his argument
> against standards?  Should
> we shoot ourselves in the foot and let our powerless
> languages disintegrate
> further and thus let them fritter away into oblivion
> because of our
> political knee-jerk reactions, because
> "standardization" sounds like
> "statism" sounds like "domination," etc., etc.?

I am certainly not arguing for shooting anyone in the
foot, although I can see how my at times rabid
narrative may give that impression. I am not arguing
against standards - I am merely presenting an
alternative analysis of them and their consequences so
that, as Ron says, "standardisation" does not merely
become "statism", "classism" or domination and that
the situation is not merely begun all over again.

I am strongly against all forms of segregation and
disenfranchisement. I am on the side of human rights,
not human wrongs. I believe that people should write
as they speak and weave themselves into a rich
tapestry of multilingualism where they may enrich
themselves through the learning of as many different
modes of thought and exprssion as possible.
Monolingualism is hardly sufficient to create esteem:
rather it may - and this is controversial - ghettoise
the speaker and reduce them to narrow-mindedness. But
as most people in the world are "multilingual" insofar
as they know their own mother tongue as well as
numerous others, true monolingualism is almost
impossible. It is this de facro diversity that should
underpin language promotion (I use the term in
preference to the somewhat fatalistic "language
survival" or "language maintenance" [which implies
that it could break down]). There is no place in the
world for absolutism - and that includes standards
that mean well but serve only to inferiorise and
delineate new frontlines of "right" and "wrong".

Do what you will, but do it remembering that human
beings are the core issue - not reprogrammable
automatons devoid of intelligence. People are not as
stupid as the state would believe and to that end,
they are more than capable of existing with or without
"standards". What we should bear in mind is that
fatalism is as much a part of centre-peripherary
de-equalisation and colonialisation as blatant
oppression itself. The difference is, we can do
something to defeat our fatalism.

Go raibh maith agaibh,

Críostóir.

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