LL-L "Language survival" 2003.04.26 (01) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 26.APR.2003 (01) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * sassisch at yahoo.com
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/rules.htm
Posting Address: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
=======================================================================
You have received this because you have 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.
=======================================================================
A=Afrikaans Ap=Appalachian B=Brabantish D=Dutch E=English F=Frisian
L=Limburgish LS=Lowlands Saxon (Low German) N=Northumbrian
S=Scots Sh=Shetlandic V=(West)Flemish Z=Zeelandic (Zeêuws)
=======================================================================

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
Subject: Languge survival

Dear Lowlanders,

Thanks to Kenneth for posting a thought-provoking article of his as his
debut on Lowlands-L:

> What to do in order to keep Low Saxon alive
> By Kenneth Rohde Christiansen

Since I am basically in agreement with the general tenet of the piece, I
have little more to add than notes based on my own experiences and
observations, plus references to issues that go beyond Lowlands Saxon
(Low German).

> Low Saxon is dying out and quickly - we have to admit that, and look at
> our alternatives. There has been some effort at standardizing the
> dialects of Low Saxon in The Netherlands, and creating a writing system
> (a different one per region, though). Because of this, we have a lot of
> Low Saxon material today; poetry, novels, history books, children's
> literature etc. This is great and might help Low Saxon to stay alive.
>
> The problem, though, is that young people don't learn the dialects and
> they don't carry on the dialect to future generations. This is due to
> many factors, and we have to look at what we can do in order to change
> that.

Perhaps we need to make this a little less sweeping, since there *are*
young people who inherited the language and use it, and others who are
learning their ancestral language as a foreign one because their parents
and/or grandparents were raised during what some call the "dark era"
after World War II, in an anti-LS climate that affected particularly
urban populations, were thus alienated from their heritage and failed to
pass it on.

LS has been experiencing a bit of a "revival," especially since official
recognition (Netherlands 1997, Germany 1999) and the struggle that led
up to it.  There are now LS writers and performers in their 30s, 20s and
even teens.  However, we ought not jump to the conclusion that we are
dealing with an actual revival, certainly not at this juncture.  It may
well be just a fad of a pretty small minority, especially that of the
_Dwarsdrievers_, the "contrary" who express their malcontent feelings
about globalized mainstream culture by utilizing what in their parents'
and grandparents' rock-and-pop days was considered old-fashioned,
gauche, bourgeois and country and thus worthy only of dismissal and
ridicule: local culture and language.  It also includes "converted"
members of their parents' and grandparents' generations, namely those
that rediscovered and reclaimed their roots in middle or old age.  Small
though this minority may be, it is better than nothing, perhaps
something that can be used as a base, because without it we ought not
even waste our time with it and with discussions of this sort.

In fact, I dare say that, at least as far as urban communities are
concerned, the conditions and potentials of LS are now better than any
other time since World War II, even though the number of speakers has
been dwindling, because likewise dwindling seems to be the number of
naysayers, and official status may prove to be of some help at least.
Official status gives us more clout if we push for LS education, media
attention, coverage and usage, and use of the language in official,
administrative communication, and of course activities funding.

However, in my view, the greatest obstacles are found among the speakers
of the language themselves.  Most people are very lethargic about it all
and have not yet woken up and smelled the coffee, jumped on the _carpe
diem_ bandwagon, and the like.  They are still in the mode of keeping
their language in the closet in the firm belief that it is going to die
there.  Perhaps they are just tired of struggling, and perhaps they are
just plain jaded after having watched fads, regimes and efforts come and
go.  Those of them to whom the language means a lot may join their local
LS organizations, where they meet and reminisce and speak the language
for a few hours of togetherness, or write a nice little piece for the
newsletter.  Why, their organization may even belong to an alliance of
local organizations, but most interregional associations cover little
ground, tend to include a narrow range of dialects, perhaps as much as a
dialect group (e.g., Drenthe, Groningen, Munsterland or Eastphalian) and
do not or will not see the larger picture: that of the language as a
whole.  Add to this the border between the Netherlands and Germany, and
you get "fragmentation city."

And herein lies the dilemma, for the combination of fragmentation (i.e.,
micro-approach and myopic views) and conservatism (= fear > rejection of
new ideas, suspicion of anyone "meddling") constitutes a formidable
obstacle to efforts to salvage and revive the language.  This clearly
manifests itself in rejection (including ignoring) of any ideas that
have anything to do with standardization.  This is in part due to
ignorance as well.  Most people do not understand what "standardization"
means, at least not in this context.  They fear that it means that a
bunch of eggheads (who know the language only theoretically) sits around
and hammers together an artificial language that will replace their
local dialects.  Most fear that orthographic changes inevitably lead to
changes in the language itself.  While this is not a totally unfounded
fear (for orthography *can* influence the phonological development of a
language), this can be avoided if everyone is aware of the pitfalls.  I
believe that before any type of language-wide standardization can take
place and can be acceptable there has to be an educational effort that
allays unfounded fears and clarifies what is really at issue, explains
that people can continue writing their local dialects with a
standardized orthography, and that even a standard (i.e., interregional)
language variety, if created, does not need to be static and rigid, can
still allow for regional color (as exemplified especially in Norway's
Nynorsk).

Most successful language and orthography standardization efforts have
relied less on administrative decrees than on popular writers' works.
This requires a sizeable number of writers and body of works using a
given orthography, which requires, at least initially, willingness of
publishers to go out on a limb.  We may become less dependent on
publishers' willingness if we stage concerted efforts on the Web,
provided that this medium stays around and keeps being freely accessible
and increasingly utilized.  (When I started with LS on the Web it was
still considered quite novel and even outlandish.  It certainly no
longer is.)  This would require web publishers to form a united front in
exposing readers to generally applicable standards.

I believe that this applies not only to LS but also to other languages
that so far have no official interregional standards, in our area of
interest for instance Zeelandic/West Flemish, Limburgish, Frisian in
Germany, Scots, perhaps Northumbrian.

Of course, it would in my opinion be ideal if orthographic standards
could be coordinated "inter-Lowlandically," which would facilitated
written communication between these closely related languages, at least
between those on the European continent and their overseas or far-flung
members (such as Afrikaans, Mennonite Lowlands Saxon [Plautdietsch] and
the various Zeelandic-, Dutch- and Afrikaans-based creoles).  However,
if nothing is "pie in the sky" or a pipe dream, I guess this is.

> I think it is very important to develop one or two (maximum) standard
> writing systems for Low Saxon in the Netherlands (Maybe 'Algemeen
> Noord-Oost Nedersaksisch' and 'Algemeen Zuid-Oost Nedersaksisch').
> However, this is very hard to do, and won't be something you can do from
> one day to another. And there is another problem: many of those who have
> started to write Low Saxon want to write as close to their home dialect
> as possible, this is pretty understandable.

Yes, and in part due to a perceived need to write dialects
"phonetically," which aggrevates the orthographic mess.

> What can we do then? Well, we could look at the unique language
> situation in Norway. In Norway, generally, it is very accepted to speak
> dialect. Actually, people dislike when people try to put their dialect
> behind them. Part of the reason for this, can be found in the writing
> system. The writing system consists of main forms, and alternative
> forms.
>
> Ex. [alternative forms]
> the bed: sengen, [senga, sjenga]
>
> This is very handy because of the following reasons. First of all, the
> main forms together form a language of themselves, a common Norwegian,
> which makes it possible for everyone to write books that addresses
> everyone in Norway (that could for instance be a math book, or a book on
> Norwegian history). However, it is also possible to write a novel or
> poetry in your own dialect (or something that resembles it very closely)
> by using the alternative forms.

Right, you and I are "speaking the same language," so to speak.  ;)
This is versus divergent spelling systems that seek to highlight local
color.

> Right now, the dictionary of Grunnegers (Gronings) follows the Norwegian
> example, and consists of alternative spellings as well, but there are no
> forms that are marked as main forms. This means that if I wanted to
> translate a book to Grunnegers, then I'd first have to decide which
> dialect I am going to write; maybe, however, I'd want to address all
> people speaking a Grunneger dialect. If some forms would be marked as
> main forms (and forming some kind of 'Aalgemeain Grunnegers'), then I
> could translate using these forms and address everyone. Maybe not in
> their home dialect, but in something which might resemble it pretty
> well.

So, it a first step in the direction of creating a written standard
variety.  Right?

How would you then deal with the indoctrinated need for LS in Germany to
be based on German orthographic principles?

There is the not so minor issue of what is generally acceptable.  For
instance, "outlandish" proposals usually do not make the cut.  This
includes non-German-based orthographies for LS in Germany and
non-English-based orthographies for Scots.

> I see this as the first step toward more recognition.

Because you have a "flagship" or "figurehead": a standard written
variety, albeit a loose one.  I guess this is a step in the direction of
what in traditional German thought has been labeled a _Kultursprache_
("culture language"), something through which interregional, national
culture expresses itself (seemingly implying that regional culture is
not really culture and unwritten languages are of lesser value).

> This for instance
> means that more general material can be produced. This might mean,
> though, that Grunnegers will develop more in the way of the defined
> "common" (Algemeen) language; but rather that than dying out…
>
> This is just a first step, but a very welcome step for Grunnegers,
> Drèents, Twents etc. The next step is to see if it is possible to make
> these Low Saxon languages a bit more 'general' in writing. I know that
> Grunnegers and Drèents are quite different, so it might not be possible
> to unite these dialects into one general writing language, but it might
> be possible with others.
>
> If we could end up with two common languages of Low Saxon in The
> Netherlands that would be great, and it might very well mean a better
> chance at survival of Low Saxon. If these two languages then could be
> standardized where possible, e.g. use the same vocal combinations for
> the same sounds, use either 't or t in both languages etc., then that
> might mean that the language will, in time, develop to be more alike
> instead of just disappearing.

Very well.  But will the language be around long enough to go through a
two-step standardization process (first regional and then general)?
Also, what if the regional standards are really divergent?  Shouldn't
the final goal (i.e., general standard) be considered right from the
outset so as to avoid divergence?

> If a certain kind of writing standardization has been established, it is
> time to look at the practical side. In my eyes, an important matter is
> spell check dictionaries for the computer. Young people use computers,
> so let's help them out, and let's try to make it available for free.

I'm with you there.  And -- hello! -- I would also like to draw
attention to those of us who are not that young and still use computers.

> The Internet has become very popular by young people and language
> enthusiasts.

OK.  So at least we oldies should count ourselves included under the
latter category.  ;)

> Mathieu Van Woerkom has already created a nice page for the different
> languages/dialect in the Netherlands (www.streektaal.cjb.net), so he
> might be interested in helping running such a site. Such a site would be
> a good way of uniting Low Saxon speakers (especially younger ones, but I
> hope older ones will join as well) in the Netherlands, Germany, or all
> over the world.

Yes, Mathieu is awesome, and a great help to me in Lowlands-L matters
too.  And there are others among us who have been doing similar things,
for instance our Scots-writing friends.  Just go to our homepage, then
"Resources," then "Links," and choose a language label.  Many people
whose pages are listed are also subscribers of Lowlands-L.

Welcome aboard, Kenneth!  As I told you privately, "there can never be
too many whippersnappers" -- "whippersnapper" meant in an unusually
positive sense, something like "mover and shaker."  (Yes, I do have a
lingo all my own and occasionally share it in public.)

Cheers!
Reinhard/Ron

================================END===================================
* 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.
=======================================================================