LL-L "Language politics" 2002.05.03 (06) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 03.MAY.2002 (06) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
 Rules: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/rules.html>
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Server Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
=======================================================================
 A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian L=Limburgish
 LS=Low Saxon (Low German) S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Language politics

Dear Lowlanders,

Below please find some information taken from the latest issue of
_contact bulletin_ (March 2002, vol. 18, No. 1) I just received in the
mail. The newsletter is published by the European Bureau of Lesser Used
Languages (EBLUL) and is financed by the European Commission. (See my
communication under "Resources" today.) I consider this information
relevant, if not directly then in principle, to some of the discussions
we have been having in this forum.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

***

This one relates to promotion of language use and recognition, including
the notion of sensitizing speakers of respective dominant languages to
the value of minority languages and cultures:

COMMUNICATING WITH MAJORITIES

Others complain to us, and we often ourselves complain, that we fail to
get our case across, or even to register on the radar screens, of those
hundreds of millions of European citizens whose first (and often only)
language is a majority state language. Why is this, and is there more
that we can do?

First we had better recognize that it is not simply a matter of trying
harder to communicate.

Communication itself takes place within a structured environment.
Minority-language speakers in the EU are today overwhelmingly bilingual
and know the language of at least one majority (the one with whom they
live) while majority-language speakers (leaving aside those few who
learn our languages), if they come into contact with our languages at
all, are likely to find them opaque and impenetrable.

On our own territories, this of course can be overcome in time if our
education system is strong enough to absorb incomers into the community
language.

To have one's own television is also a great help. While radio and the
press in another language find readers and listeners almost entirely
within the same language group, television, being a mixture of words and
images, also attracts an eavesdropping audience, who see what is going
on and may even come to understand some of the words. Where there are
negative stereotypes of the minority within the majority population, TV
can redress this by enabling those outside the group to see an ongoing
life which is as various, interesting, amusing, entertaining, and, yes -
often as ordinary and banal as their own life. Quiz shows are also
popular in minority languages!

Until recently minority language TV was only available within the
territory, but now there are some cases of minority languages on
satellite which will extend that eavesdropping possibility to other
European citizens as well as offering a home channel to expatriates from
our communities. But it is worth stressing that these effects will only
be achieved if a minority has its own audiovisual industry which can
produce original material, if a minority channel consists largely of
dubbed American material, the projection of the minority will not be
much enhanced!

Official recognition in the form of bilingual signs and forms is of
course important for outsiders in that it tells them symbolically that
we exist. Otherwise it is all too easy for a tourist to pass through a
minority language area and not even be aware of a language's
existence.-Where a strong autonomous government makes the language truly
co-official within its area, then of course the status of the language
will be all the-greater for outsiders as well as for speakers of the
language.

Education, media, public administration - these have been the three
pillars of EU policy for minority languages since the early days of the
Arfé Report and the Kuijpers Resolution in the European Parliament, and
we have usually thought of implementing policies in these areas as
improving the condition of minority languages and of those who" speak
them, which is certainly their main purpose. But gains in these areas
also improve the environment within which communication takes place. And
when that environment improves there will be a greater demand for
dependable and topical information - which is where the Bureau's
information services, the Eurolang news agency, the Mercator databases
and research programmes become relevant.

But there is one neglected area of communication and that is the
translation of our literatures - or at least of a few representative
titles - into: the major European languages. It is in literature that
one finds, reflected what it is to be/alive at particular times, in
particular places and ' within particular languages. It is there you get
the, words that strike to the heart, the human record of our joys and
grievances, the political;' complexities and everyday conflicts of
bilingual societies, solidarities within and across group divisions, all
rendered not abstractly but in terms of friends and lovers, families and
work, and in relation to our special histories. We can all think of
appropriate titles; Is there perhaps a publisher in French, German,
English, Italian or Spanish (or best in all in all of those) who would
'publish a series of translations?

   Ned Thomas

***

This one is relevant to Dutch (Flemish) in Westhoek (France) and to the
issue of countries refusing to recognize certain or all ethnic and or
linguistic minorities:

FRANCE UNDER PRESSURE OVER HUMAN RIGHTS

At the end of November the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights of the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights listed the
lack of recognition of minorities in France as one its principal
subjects of concern. It had been considering France's second periodic
report on the implementation of the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights and also had before it a joint submission by
the French Committee of EBLUL and the organization "Pour que vivent nos
langues".

The following is an extract from the text of the Committee s concluding
observations:
_The Committee expresses its concern about the lack of recognition of
minorities in France. While the French tradition emphasizes the unity of
the State and equality of all French citizens, and while there is a
commitment on the part of the State party to respect and protect equal
rights for all, the Committee is of the opinion that the fact that all
individuals are guaranteed equal rights in the State party and that they
are all equal before the law does not mean that minorities do not have
the right to exist and to be protected as such in the State party. The
Committee emphasizes that equality before the law is not always adequate
to ensure the equal enjoyment of human rights, and in particular
economic, social and cultural rights, by certain minority groups in a
country._

The section "Suggestions and Recommendations" goes on to say:
_The Committee suggests that the State party review its position with
regard to minorities by ensuring that minority groups have the right to
exist and to be protected as such in the State party. The Committee
recommends that the State party withdraw its reservation with regard to
Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
and that it ratify the Council of Europe's Framework Convention on the
Protection of National Minorities, as well as the European Charter for
Regional or Minority Languages. The Committee also recommends that the
State party increase its efforts to preserve regional and minority
cultures and languages, and that it undertake measures to improve
education on, and in these languages._

The joint report presented to the Committee by the French Committee of
EBLUL and "Pour que vivent nos langues" praised the present Minister of
Education, Jack Lang's courage in developing his new project for
regional languages and called for the amendment of the French
Constitution which in its present form was being used to block these
developments and prevent France from ratifying the European Charter for
Regional or Minority Languages. It notes tellingly: "France could not
join the European Union today, as the ratification of the European
Charter for Regional or Minority Languages is a prerequisite for the
accession of all new members."

***

This one relates in principle to our orthography discussions, with
particular relevance to Scots (orthographic assimilation or
dissimilation vis-à-vis English?) and Low German/Low Saxon (Can we ever
unify the two orthographically across the Netherlands-German border,
and, if so, what principles will be followed: German, Dutch or
independent ones?):

NEW NORMS FOR WRITTEN GALICIAN?
THE DEBATE RAGES ON

When the Galician Committee of the Spanish MSC presented its report to
the Council of EBLUL meeting in Charleroi in October 2001, it seemed as
if the long-running controversy over the orthographic norms for written
Galician was close to being settled. The Committee's report stated:

"The present norms, approved in 1982 have never commanded general
consent. Large sectors of Galician life - writers, teachers, language
associations - never adopted these norms. There was also official
discrimination against those groups which did not use the official norms
(withholding of grants, inability to get published, problems if you
worked within the education system). The polemic between
"reintegrationism" [a movement towards Portuguese orthographic norms]
and "isolationism" had gone on for years and seemed incapable of
resolution."

"Now, after two years of discussions, the departments of Galician in our
three universities and various other scholarly and cultural
organizations (including our own), have arrived at an agreement which
has already been presented to the Royal Galician Academy for
ratification..."

"Everyone concerned with language normalization is looking forward to
the ratification with impatience, as it will be an event of enormous
importance for our language."

That was in mid-October. The Royal Galician Academy postponed a decision
at its first meeting and then decided against adopting the new norms at
a meeting on 17 November which, ironically coincided with a conference
in Pontevedra on "Languages without Normalization: their present and
future."

The Galician Government (Xunta de Galicia) quickly expressed its
satisfaction with the decision of the Academy, which immediately led to
accusations of political pressure being applied to the Academy,
accusations which were, of course, denied. Prof. Anton Santamarina,
director of the Institute for the Galician Language, who had played a
leading role in the preparation of the new norms, confessed himself
baffled by the outcome "since virtually everyone in the field of
Galician culture including those far removed from political nationalism,
had seemed to be in agreement." He believed that resubmitting proposals
to the Academy would be too complicated a process.

But the debate did not die down and fills pages in the newspapers of
Galicia. Proponents of the new norms cannot understand why something has
been rejected which in their view fulfils almost everyone's
expectations, while opponents see the new norms as coming too close to
Portuguese and thus offering a "dangerous" precedent. The negative
decision caused great disappointment among professionals of the language
- teachers, editors, actors, journalists etc, and the authors of the new
proposals, together with the institutions which they represented, held
meetings in the seven major towns of Galicia during December to explain
those proposals to the public. There is also a petition to the Academy
to change its mind, and a campaign of sending faxes to the Academy.

Then in late December, a new President of the Academy was elected, the
historian Professor Xosé Ramon Barreiro. He had supported the new
proposals before their rejection, and in an interview before Christmas
with _A Nosa Terra_ declared that "the agreement on the norm has to be
discussed again". He added that the original decision had perhaps been
taken at an unsuitable time, too close to the Galician regional
elections, which had meant that the debate had become unduly
politicized.

Galician identity is generally agreed to be very closely bound up with
language. Uncertainty and division over the norms for writing the
language, seem, to an outsider, to symbolize wider uncertainties, which
is no doubt why relatively small technical questions of orthography
raise such passions. Agreement, which is still possible, might
inaugurate a period of greater cultural self-confidence.

   Ned Thomas

==================================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 postings to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
 * Postings 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
=======================================================================