LL-L "Language policies" 2005.02.03 (06) [E]

[Lowlands-L]

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 03.FEB.2005 (06) * 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: Mike <botas at club-internet.fr>
Subject: LL-L "Language politics" 2004.12.13 (02) [E/German]


Hi, LLs,
Ron, you wrote:
Sure, catering to linguistic diversity is expensive, and, yes, much of it is
symbolism, even tokenism in some cases.  However, what would be the other
extreme?  English only.  (No, not even French and German, much though that
would hurt some -- and forget about Dutch or Danish!)  What kind of a symbol
would that be, and what would it teach Europeans that are growing up?

The article gives a clear message, the usual message: multilingualism is
silly, and catering to "exotic" minorities is a waste of time and money, and
most articles of this ilk carry tones of disrespect for linguistic and
ethnic minorities, at least paint them as negligible oddities.  "Irish?!
What next? Aren't Lithuanian, Slovak, Estonian, Hungarian and all the other
Johnnies-come-lately silly enough? Can't those people learn real languages,
languages that count?"  The assumedly only explanation is that of the quoted
"top diplomat of long standing": "Language is pure emotion."  What about
human rights?

You can look at this as a business person or as someone who disregards the
monetary side of it.  But in both cases you'd have to ask yourself in what
kind of Europe you'd rather live.  If you require all representatives to
have perfect command of the "main" languages (and at the extreme stage of
English) then you'd be creating an elite, excluding potential
representatives that would do better jobs using their native languages.
Note that Catalan and Galician are being used as main instruction media in
Spanish universities, and that the other "exotic" languages are used in
primary and secondary schooling.  Furthermore, as I understand it, whatever
transpires at such paliamentary sessions is not for the ears of
representatives and delegates only but is supposed to be a matter of public
record directly accessible to the various constituencies.

Sometimes it's necessary to play the devil's advocate.

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

I felt a certain discomfort when reading Ron´s words.
Many speakers of so-called "lesser-used" (EU bureaucratic term) languages
see in United Europe their (sometimes last) chance to preserve their
languages. They reckon that a United Europe organized in cultural regions
would eventually give equal standing to - say - LSaxon and French, by
softening the present-day structure of monolithic states with their state
languages.
Isn´t there a danger that if all states, from Malta to France, get for their
state languages official status within the EU, that the present two-class
system of languages, state and "lesser", will be perpetuated and cemented?
Of course, one could continue the Spanish initiative and start giving the
"lesser" languages also official status with the EU. But can you imagine the
political haggling that would follow for decades to come? If people question
the official status of EI-Gaelic, what would be the reaction if the
Saterfrisians knocked at the EU door?
I feel that the distinction between "state" and "lesser" languages can be
softened with the goal of making it obsolete, by having only one sort of
language in the EU, the REGIONAL language. This goal appears to me
attainable, if all Europeans learn, from kindergarten-age on, a pan-European
communication language as a SECOND language, nevertheless the only one to be
used at EU level.
English is a far-from-ideal choice, but it appears to me a pragmatic choice,
the only practical one that would pull such an undertaking within realistic
reach.
Appropriate language policies, in particular with respect to the status of
the regional languages as PRIMARY, exclusive in appropriate areas, could
prevent Europe from going the way of the USA, India, the URSS, China, or
France, Germany and Great Britain for that matter. The Swiss have
demonstrated that it is possible, even only with a de-facto common language.
Yawning, dismissing their example as old-hat, not applicable, special-case
etc... cannot make it disappear. It has been there for 1000 peaceful years.
Mike Wintzer

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