LL-L "Language politics" 2005.04.10 (07) [E]

Sun Apr 10 20:57:11 UTC 2005

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 10.APR.2005 (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
Commands ("signoff lowlands-l" etc.): listserv at listserv.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: heather rendall <HeatherRendall at compuserve.com>
Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2005.04.10 (04) [E]

Message text written by INTERNET:lowlands-l at LOWLANDS-L.NET
>
English is a killer language. Don't let its utility deceive any of you
otherwise.<

But only because people make it so.

Of it self it is just a means to an end - communication

The value / importance real or imaginary laid upon it is put there by
people.

When I lived in Wales, I had to fend off attacks by 'ardent' Welsh language
supporters who argued that my Grandfather would not have had to wear the
Welsh NOT   ([A wooden board with NOT carved in it. It was placed round the
neck of any pupil heard speaking Welsh and could only be got rid of by
passing it to another pupil heard speaking Welsh ( i.e. to encourage
children to snitch on each other) ]

My reply was twofold
1. My grandfather would have worn the Norfolk NOT. The NOT board was not
solely to be found in Wales. National Education in mid 19th century had as
one of its aims the learning of The Queen's English so that all children
would have freedom of movement throughout the land and freedom from
snobbery and prejudice engendered by use of unintelligible dialects. It was
important ( as seen then) that people should be able to move to an area and
not find themselves hampered by lack of intelligibility.

What was not understood or taken on board was that Queen's English was
meant to lie parallel with own's own language not replace it. And this
leads to my second point.

2. It was Welsh teachers who hung the Welsh NOT around the pupils' necks -
not English teachers - who were busy hanging similar devices round
Hampshire , Sussex, Yorkshire , Devon etc children's necks. The Welsh
middle class abandoned their Welsh language in the home  because they
believed it would give their children a greater advantage in the world if
their English was good/perfect.

It is amusing/strange/ obvious/ interesting that it is exactl;y this same
group of people who have led the revival of Welsh in Wales ... in order to
secure a good job one has to be a Welsh speaker.

If any one is to blame it is the middle classes who seem to think that a
single language will land a better job AND who do not understand that bi-
or even polylingualism is a natural human talent.

Those parents who have supported understanding and skillls in many
langauges / dialects are the ones to be lauded, so that others can be shown
that the idea of 'giving up ' one language for another is NOT the way
forward.

Heather

----------

From: Críostóir Ó Ciardha <paada_please at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2005.04.10 (04) [E]

Ron wrote:
"...please remember that, while they have conventions, the United States
have *no* language policy, certainly nothing enshrined in the constitution
as it is in France and other European countries, thereby, at least in
theory, leaving the door open for another language to take the
lead."

I did make reference to that in my initial response. It is bitterly ironic -
sickening, in fact - that Ireland, which has an official national language,
pretends it does not, and that Australia and the United States, which have
no official languages, pretend that they do.

Ron also wrote:
"The United States, Canada and Australia used to pursue intregration
policies that were hostile to linguistic and cultural survival in indigenous
and immigrant communities. They all changed this in the 1960s and 1970s."

Canada excepted (I actually believe the Canadian experience of official
languages is most instructive, although it could be improved upon in terms
of the treatment of indigenous languages), multi-culturalism (in Australia
at least - I cannot and would not like to speak for the United States) is
superficial. Indigenous languages are still as threatened and
administratively ignored as ever, even in areas where they are the main
idiom spoken. While it is possible to obtain government information in a few
languages, not all immigrant languages are catered for.

One example in particular made no sense to me. During the recent state
election in Western Australia, electoral information was available in a raft
of languages. Arabic, Greek, Dutch, Italian, German, the various Chinese
languages, Thai and Vietnamese were demographically justifiable. Yet the
same information was not made available in any of the indigenous languages,
despite a relatively higher rate of spoilt ballots in areas where English is
a second language. Nor was it available in Welsh, even though there is a
substantially first-language Welsh-speaking community in Perth. However,
inexplicably, the information was available in both Amharic and Tigrinya,
even though hardly any of the Ethiopian- or Eritrean-born speak these
languages according to census data (the main language among Ethiopian
households was English with 14.3 per cent and among Eritrean households was
Arabic with 57.3 per cent). What is more, only 400 Ethiopians and 240
Eritreans actually live in Weste rn Australia. There are far more native
Welsh speakers (at least 2,200 in WA alone if my projections are accurate),
and many, many more indigenous language speakers. It was utterly
wrong-headed, and breeds a certain amount of cynicism toward the exercise in
the first place.

Who chooses which languages fall under "multi-cultural" and which ones are
left to fend for themselves? Yes, most Welsh speakers have very good
English. But, according to census data, so do most Ethiopians and Eritreans.
(Indeed, Ethiopians have the best knowledge of English of any ESL Australian
immigrant group at 84.6 per cent speaking English "very well or well".)
Certainly to me there is no justification for demanding that non-English
speaking Aboriginals interact with officialdom in English.

Ron wrote:
"For decades now, Canada Day and Australia Day have been celebrated with the
strong message of encouragement for maintaining various family-heritage
languages and cultures as Canadians and Australians."

I am less optimistic, Ron. One of the defining facets of the identity of
Australian officialdom is that it is Anglophone. Citizenship ceremonies -
including the oath - are in English only. Australia Day is an
English-speaking day. Official ceremonies that took place in other languages
would not be treated with contempt, but they would be seen as a bit odd.
Multi-culturalism is superficial and minimal, and geared towards ensuring
that yes, family-heritage languages survive, but that they stay in the
family and in the home. I strongly believe this attitude of linguistic
discouragement contributes to a general Australian unwillingness to see the
utility in learning languages other than English.

Lastly, Ron wrote:
"Being different (which includes belonging to any indigenous minority) is
still widely considered alien, problematic, obstinate and even "foreign" in
Europe, while this is far less so in American, Canadian or Australian
societies. Despite my "accent" and my "weird" ways and opinions, Australians
and Americans always tend to err on the side of assuming that I am a citizen
of their respective countries just by virtue of living there."

Yes, because you communicate through English. Many Australians believe you
are refusing to integrate ("abusing their hospitality") if one does not
speak English all the time, even to one's own children. Indeed, disciplining
children for using indigenous languages in the playground is still known - I
have seen it personally. But, as I should point, that is my own personal
experience, and everyone's is different.

Go raibh maith agat,

Criostóir.

----------

From: Críostóir Ó Ciardha <paada_please at yahoo.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Identity" 2005.04.10 (06) [E]

Ron wrote of his citizenship ceremony:
"It took me decades of maturing to arrive at a place where I can feel that
with such a step I am not endorsing current predominant attitudes, policies,
laws, government officials and the like, but am officially tying the knot
with an idea and an ideal that is worthy, though unfortunately far from
being realized."

Can you take ceremony in languages other than English? What a service you
would do if you took it in Low Saxon!

Ádh mór agus comhghairdeas agatsa a chara,

Criostóir.

----------

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

Hey, Críostóir!

Again, I feel there's no basic disagreement between you and me.  We're just
looking at the same things in slightly different ways and accordingly react
differently.  I am now looking less at manifestations of political and
bureaucratic mindlessness, more at basic intents.  It is far easier to
change the former (globally endemic though it may be) than to change the
latter.

> It is bitterly ironic - sickening, in fact - that Ireland, which has an
> official
> national language, pretends it does not, and that Australia and the United
> States, which have no official languages, pretend that they do.

I totally agree.  And, no, the Oath of Allegiance can be said in English
only.  Furthermore, despite the absence of a language policy, the
"naturalization" process includes an English exam (which the officer gave
me, also a third-grade English dictation (!), even though I was officially
exempted thrice, having lived here for more than 20 years, having immigrated
from a factually English-speaking country and having degrees from
English-speaking universities -- but who dares to argue with an INS officer,
now belonging to Homeland Security?)  I have discussed this with a few
people here, who argued that it is a pragmatic rule, because in reality you
can't survive without English, to which I countered that having survived for
22 years ought to be sufficient proof.  (The minimum number of years is
five, and that's a long time to survive, too.)

> Many Australians believe you are refusing to integrate ("abusing their
> hospitality") if one does not speak English all the time, even to one's
> own children.

This is not my experience, but perhaps I frequented different social
circles.  Only once did I hear a guy scream at Vietnamese speakers on a
public bus in Perth for this reason, and several other assumedly born and
raised Australians, as well as yours truly, told him to shut the #$&@ up and
leave those people alone.

> Yet the same information was not made available in any of the indigenous
> languages, despite a relatively higher rate of spoilt ballots in areas
> where
> English is a second language.

Oh, yeah!  The same happens here, also in Canada, according to reports.
Federal government information, public health guides, etc., are routinely
sent not only in English but also in Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese, Khmer,
Laotian, Korean, Amharic, Tigrinya and Russian, often also in (Haitian)
Kreol, Hmong, Arabic, German, Italian, Polish, Ukrainian and others, but not
in indigenous languages, usually not even to areas with high concentrations
of speakers of these.  So speakers of Lakota, Navajo, Iñupiaq, Yup'ik,
Gwich'in, Koyukon, Tanaina, Tanana, Ahtna, Kuskokwim, Aleut, Tsalagi
(Cherokee), Choktaw, Cajun French (1 mill.!), Mennonite and non-Mennonite
Low Saxon, Pennsylvania German, Gullah and other languages of wider spread
or higher concentration can get their hands on Laotian material, not on
material in their own languages (and this includes language communities that
did not *choose* to be a part of the country).  But again, Críostóir, these
are "only" cases of bureaucratic mindlessness.

Heather (above):

> But only because people make it so.
>
> Of it self it is just a means to an end - communication
>
> The value / importance real or imaginary laid upon it is put there by
> people.

Hear, hear!

> It is amusing/strange/ obvious/ interesting that it is exactl;y this same
> group of people who have led the revival of Welsh in Wales ... in order to
> secure a good job one has to be a Welsh speaker.
>
> If any one is to blame it is the middle classes who seem to think that a
> single language will land a better job AND who do not understand that bi-
> or even polylingualism is a natural human talent.
>
> Those parents who have supported understanding and skillls in many
> langauges / dialects are the ones to be lauded, so that others can be
> shown
> that the idea of 'giving up ' one language for another is NOT the way
> forward.

Hear, hear, over and over again!  But I think I'm repeating myself, I think.

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