LL-L "Language use" 2004.06.28 (04) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 28.JUN.2004 (04) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
http://www.lowlands-l.net * lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Rules & Guidelines: http://www.lowlands-l.net/index.php?page=rules
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org or lowlands-l at lowlands-l.net
Server Manual: http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html
Archives: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-8) [Please switch your view mode to it.]
=======================================================================
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: Sandy Fleming <sandy at scotstext.org>
Subject: "Language use" [E]

> From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Language use
>
> Let us take the example of Dutch.  Quite often we hear about people
feeling
> that the Dutch language is in one way or another being threatened, even

I think the Dutch case is a good demonstration of the fact that just because
a language has the government's backing and an education system doesn't mean
it's future is guaranteed!

Ultimately, after history has ran it's course and you look back on dead
languages, the only thing that really matters in language survival is its
status in the eyes of its speakers. Official backing and a place in the
national curriculum certainly raises its status, but it's the raised status
that results in the language thriving, not the official backing itself. An
example worth considering is Latin and Greek, which remained well alive in
Britain until quite recently, simply on the strength of their status making
them seem important to include as part of a man's education. And yes, I do
mean a "man's" education - low-status languages like French and Spanish were
only taught to women!

A long time ago on Lowlands-L, John Magnus said that Shetlanders who went on
holiday to Wales considered the Welsh to be rude because they spoke Welsh
even when they (the Shetlanders) were present. Whereas Shetlanders are
polite, and only speak English in the presence of off-islanders.

It's no surprise though, that Shetlandic has been dying a dramatic death in
the past few decades, while Welsh continues to thrive. The real difference
is that the Welsh want to speak Welsh, and Shetlanders want to speak
English. The Welsh aren't rude, all they're doing is according their
language proper language status, while the Shetlanders call their language
"dialect". Yes, the Welsh language has a lot of official backing and a place
in the educational system, but this is only because Welsh speakers struggled
for it. I think that if Shetlanders had tried as hard, the language would
have the same recognition. But their "polite" image in front of visitors is
more important to them than their language.

It's very difficult getting even knowledgeable people to accept this idea.
For example, when I said that Cornish died out because Cornish speakers
wanted their children to speak English, the idea was dismissed as
"laughable". Activists keep saying that Welsh, Scots, Cornish &c are
"oppressed by the English". In fact, most English people never even think
about Scots, Cornish and Welsh, let alone attempt to oppress them. It's
entirely a question of the status the speakers of the language accord to it.

In the case of BSL it's a little different. There seems little chance of the
language dying out simply because many of it's best speakers simply _must_
use it. This automatically accords it a high status in the eyes of its
speakers. It's also different from other languages in that oral cultures
find the speakers living and using the language in their midst, and so
active attempts are made to suppress it. The ancient Greeks tried to supress
it by infanticide, Alexander Graham Bell tried to suppress it by eugenics,
the medical profession has tried to suppress it by finding cures, and the
teaching profession has tried to suppress it by brute force. But nothing
will wipe out a language that its speakers have decided they just have to
use.

Sandy
http://scotstext.org/

----------

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

Thanks for the thought-provoking input above, Sandy!

I totally agree with your statement that the speakers' attitudes, more than
institutionalization, are of paramount importance for the continued use of a
language.

I would go as far as including "heirs" along with speakers.  This follows
from your thread of speakers who "must" use a certain language.  This may no
longer seem that strange if you consider the fact that certain languages,
ancestral languages, even though technically extinct as native languages,
continue to be used and even thrive because they are inextricably connected
with and even basic to belief systems, religions.

You mentioned Latin, which is one example, representing Roman Catholicism,
still being used as a lingua franca, not only in writing but also verbally.

The roles of New Testament Greek and Old Church Slavonic are as important in
Eastern Orthodoxy, though they probably are not used in casual conversation.

Another example is Sanskrit, which "officially" changed from a living
language to a liturgical one in about the 4th century B.C.E., being still
widely studied, mostly in Hinduism and to a somewhat lesser degree also in
Mahâyâna Buddhism.  Similar to Latin in the Roman Catholic world, it is
still used as a literary language and is still spoken as a second language,
especially as a lingua franca.  To some Indians this is preferable to having
Hindi as a national language, since it does not favor a certain ethnic
group.  In fact, Sanskrit is one of India's official languages (with Hindi,
English, Bengali, Telugu, Marathi, Tamil, Urdu, Gujarati, Malayalam,
Kannada, Oriya, Punjabi, Assamese, Kashmiri and Sindhi).  In India there are
even Sanskrit radio programs, outside of India only offered by Deutsche
Welle as a part of their Hindi programming (though it appears to be
discontinued now).  Many Sanskrit courses offered in India and elsewhere
include the teaching of conversational skills, using neologisms for which
native Sanskrit compounding has been utilized.

Classical Arabic enjoys the highest of prestige and is promised a rosy
future because it is basic to Islam, even though it is the native dialect of
virtually no one.

As I mentioned a while ago, Hebrew has never totally ceased to be a living
language.  It was still used in literature and in international Jewish
communication even prior to the birth of Zionism, though it was extinct as a
native language.

All of this is due to high prestige, sacred language status, among the
speakers' heirs.

The case of Hebrew shows us that on that basis a language can even regain
native language status.

Regards,
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.
======================================================================