LL-L "Language varieties" 2010.03.18 (14) [EN]

[Lowlands-L List]

===============================================
*L O W L A N D S - L - 18 March 2010 - Volume 14*
lowlands.list at gmail.com - http://lowlands-l.net/
Posting: lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org
Archive: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html
Encoding: Unicode (UTF-08)
Language Codes: lowlands-l.net/codes.php
===============================================


From: Sandy Fleming <sandy at fleimin.demon.co.uk>
Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2010.03.17 (01) [EN]

> From: jmtait <jmtait at wirhoose.co.uk>
> Subject: LL-L "Language varieties" 2010.03.15 (06) [EN]

> Certainly Shetland popular opinion would seem to suggest so. Typical
> comments from people who knew I was interested in (The)
> (Sh(a)etlan(d(ic))) (D/dialect) have been: "Hit's deein oot, an hit's
> laekly a guid thing"; "If you teach it dat'll kill it aff" and "Weel,
> I'm no sayin I'm wantin it ta dee oot, bit..." Many people find only
> the dialect of their own immediate area acceptable, and object far
> more if their children pick up pronunciations from other parts of
> Shetland than if they speak only standard English. Some still object
> to the use of dialect on Radio Shetland, but nobody seems to object to
> SIBC which, I am told, has a non-dialect policy. Overall, the message
> is clear. Whether we are better off without it or not, it's not
> something we want to make an unseemly fuss about. In the UHI, I argued
> for local ownership of Shetland culture, and if this is what
> Shetlanders want I have no right to object.

I would sum this up as "situation normal".

It's an unpopular opinion that I've expressed on the list before that
languages don't so often die from oppression as from the fact that their
speakers decide they'd rather speak something else.

Or they'd rather their children speak something else.

What can an individual do? It depends on what they like to do. I like to
avoid politics but I wouldn't underestimate the importance of making a
body of literature available at a time like this. In the end it can mean
the difference between a remembered (and perhaps revivable) language,
and a forgotten language.

Sandy Fleming
http://scotstext.org/

----------



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

Subject: Language varieties

 Sandy,

You said:

It's an unpopular opinion that I've expressed on the list before that
languages don't so often die from oppression as from the fact that their
speakers decide they'd rather speak something else.

Or they'd rather their children speak something else.

 “Unpopular” has never stopped me from jumping onto someone’s bandwagon that
appeals to me.


I’m sure you’re right in principle. But you have to ask, too, why people
made these decisions in the first place and if the trend can be reversed.


More often than not, people come to believe that they or their children
would be better off going only with the power language, mostly because there
is so much pressure and indoctrination from administration, formal
education, the media and others to this effect. The need to be socially
acceptable (including not being seen as a secessionist or other type of
disloyal rebel) and to be economically successful overrides everything else.
But this doesn’t mean that it’s just that people are pressured into this
sort of choice.


As I understand it, one of the purposes of the European Languages Charter is
to *remove* or at least lessen such pressures to start with, at least as far
as administration and formal education are concerned. Another purpose is to
signal that it is all right to hold on to one’s non-power language.


Can the trend be reversed? It can be by way of awareness and pride
campaigns, relevant education and, certainly, by way of various degrees of
regional independence (by which I do not mean to suggest that Shetlanders
secede).


During most of the 20th century, native language loyalty was dwindling for
instance in Greenland and throughout Inuit populations of Canada and Alaska.
Many Greenlandic parents used to be opposed to increased Greenlandic medium
teaching because they had been made to believe that more Greenlandic and
less Danish would hamper their children’s education. Now, Greenland is
almost independent from Denmark (safe for defense and foreign relations) and
is steering toward full independence as a North American country (no longer
as an appendage of Europe). Greenlandic is now the only official language of
the country, and all native Danish speakers of the country must learn it as
a second language. Greenlandic is the first Native American language that is
the sole national language of any country. Similarly, both Inuktitut and
Inuinnaqtun are official, besides French and English, in the Canada’s
recently established self-governing region of Nunavut. I understand that
this has boosted native speaker pride and confidence, thereby also language
loyalty.


And did not also Welsh make a comeback? What caused that?


Until not long ago, Judeo-specific languages (such as Yiddish, Ladino,
Aramaic and Bokharic) other than Hebrew were *linguae non gratae* in Israel.
Their use was more discouraged than was that of most languages that are not
Judeo-specific (e.g. English, French, Spanish and Russian). Something has
reversed this trend. Cultural and linguistic diversity is now being embraced
by many Israelis, and Yiddish and Ladino have made resurgence, are even
being celebrated in some quarters and are featured in popular culture.


Regards,
Reinhard/Ron
Seattle, USA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lowlands-l/attachments/20100318/b0d1176e/attachment.htm>