LL-L "Language politics" 2004.09.10 (07) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 10.SEP.2004 (07) * 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: Mark Brenchley <lagrandefenetre at hotmail.com>
Subject: "Language politics" 2004.09.10 (01) [E]

Hmm, I should probably revise my last message a little bit. Ultimately, what
I think I was reacting against was (what I felt to be) the underlying
suggestion argument that uni-lingualism is the goal of "political powers"
(i.e. that this was something inherently insidious, the work of the forces
of oppression, &c - apologies Roger if this was not what you were saying).
It seems to me that this is not such a pervasive phenomenon as it might
seem, and that uni-lingualism is not necessarily such a bad thing.

Take the case of "one people-one language". On a practical level, the
existence of one primary language of communication seems highly desirable -
as mentioned, the use of Latin in the Seventeenth Century as a means of
communication meant that 1) people could communicate on a more neutral level
(even if their love of Latin was a litte affected, 2) they could communicate
in the one language, helping to avoid any of the noise/loss of meaning that
might occur through translation into different languages. When reduced to
local instances of specific countries, again the point seems to stand - it
is simply useful for there to be one primary language: it breaks down local
differences, increases co-operation. This should not necessarily be
associated with nationalism (though things can be twisted that way, and
probably show a pervasive tendency to go that way).
Also, the growth of a single language is not necessarily the same thing as a
reduction of resources. Again, English seems an excellent example of a
language that has the capacity to absorb numerous influences, incorporating
them (rather than exterminating them), during its devlopment and expansion.

Nor should it be assumed that dialects suffer as a result. In England, there
is still a high degree of variation and local difference, despite the
existence of the Queen's English (though this is often reprehensively
assumed to be the one, true form of English), which is much more
orthographical in scope. I would think that this would probably be the same
across many languages (or should that be countries?). This is not to say
that dialects do not die out as a result of uni-lingualism (Breton and
Provencal are fairly good examples - though they may not technically be
dialects), and that it is a good thing that they do (any language that dies
out unrecorded seriously hampers attempts of linguists to get a proper
understanding of linguistic phenomena).

I would also say that an emphasis on particular cultural traits is much more
highly culpable of nationalism, rather than a drive towards the one
language.

----------

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

Hi, Mark!

> I would also say that an emphasis on particular cultural traits is much
more
> highly culpable of nationalism, rather than a drive towards the one
> language.

I certainly have no argument with that, except that in real life the two
tend to go hand in hand, that language monopolism or imperialism very often
*contains* or is a symptom of cultural monopolism or imperialism.

Aside from that, I don't think many people would argue against the need of
linguae francae, nationally, regionally or globally.  Promotion and use of a
lingua franca is one thing; smothering native or minority languages is
another thing.  The former does not need to lead to the latter.  I think
this is what we have been talking about here.

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.
=======================================================================