LL-L "Language politics" 2004.09.29 (14) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 29.SEP.2004 (14) * 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: Ian James Parsley <ian at ianjamesparsley.net>
Subject: Language varieties

Dear All,


After a while lurking, I'll come back on this issue!

The tension between the promotion (of the use) of minority/regional
languages and moves towards a standard/sole language often appears
insoluble.

Esperanto (and others) were put forward as one way to solve it, but if it
had worked, well nu, mi tie kaj nun estus skrivanta esperanton!

My issue here is that this tension need not exist, if only we would think
outside the box.

Maybe we should start with some basic notions to test if we all agree on
them: 1. Minority/regional speech forms are worth preserving because they
each represent a unique heritage and a worldview. 2. English is the dominant
language in the world today - with a level of dominance perhaps unparalleled
ever in history (certainly at a genuinely global level).

Most people (in the Western World at least) would sympathize with the first
point, but many in society do not regard it as important enough to make an
effort about, preferring the 'practicality' of a single standard tongue both
in speech and writing.

Most people also would accept the reality and, in some cases, the utility of
the second point, while many might oppose instinctively the idea of a single
language being so dominant, on the basis perhaps that a single language
represents a single (albeit general and, within parameters, varied) culture
and heritage.

However, is it really impossible for these two to meet?

Here, in my view, lies the crucial distinction between 'social language' and
'administrative language', between the 'language of the playground' and the
'language of the classroom'.

To be a little controversial, it is in fact usually dangerous for minority
language activists - certainly those representing languages all but
extinct - to seek a place for that language within the structures of formal
government at the expense of its genuine day-to-day social use. Swiss German
is the ultimate example of doing the latter but not the former. Catalan and
Welsh are perhaps successful examples of doing both (although both always
remained in strong social use in large areas even before their respective
revivals). However, is it really a good idea for Low Saxon, or Scots, or
Limburgish, to seek a position in formal (often government) translations or
as part of parliamentary proceedings before they have regained sufficient
ground in general social use? Such calls run the risk of turning an
otherwise disinterested general public *against* a language movement - never
a good idea in a democracy, no matter what the value of that movement's
cause.

Indeed, the reason Esperanto succeeded more than other ALs was nothing to do
with its structure or ease of us, but rather precisely that its supporters
realized the need for a critical mass of social users. They didn't quite
make it, of course, but that's a subject for another list.

For us, my point is that the battle between moves towards a single
administrative international language (i.e. English) and towards support for
the development of the use of regional languages need not be mutually
exclusive.

Best wishes,
Ian P.

=====
-----------------------------
Ian James Parsley
www.ianjamesparsley.net

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