ELL: political implications

[Gerd Jendraschek]

>Another argument that we can give for saving small languages is that
diversity is a 'good thing': in nature, society, and languages.

I do of course agree in principle, but it is not so easy to explain why
diversity is a 'good thing'. I remember that we have been trying to do that
on this list some time ago in response to the 'famous' Wallstreet Journal
article. First, the explanations sound very abstract and philosophical and
second, there are too many people who think that the spread of universal
monoculture is a better thing. Rather than arguing that diversity is good, I
would say that diversity is 'natural' and that homogenization, i.e. reducing
diversity, is totalitarian.

> Unless one is advocating some kind of racist "blood and soil"
> theory (I hope not) the only "emotional factor" that should
> influence a person's choice of an identity language is his or
> her personal linguistic history.

> But impersonal connections with a "past" that comes out of
> books or constructed communal history are "emotional factors"
> only to the extent that political rhetoric makes them so.

This is an important point as it refers to the political implications of
language revitalization movements. As linguists we would prefer not to get
involved in political quarrels and to stick to purely linguistic questions.
However, this is often impossible because, as Fishman explained, "successful
revitalization is part of a larger ethnocultural goal". This 'larger goal'
is often defined by regional nationalists (with political claims) and we
cannot deny that nationalists play an important role in language
revitalization movements (see e.g. UK or Spain). On the other hand, the term
'ethnocultural' alone could be associated with 'blood-and-soil-theories' and
we cannot deny either that many nationalist movements have a propensity for
racism and exclusion. A way out of this dilemma could be to forget about
'blood' (connections with ancestors) and to concentrate on 'soil'
(connections with a territory), and some nationalist movements have indeed
made such an evolution, e.g. "the moderate parts" in Corsica and the Basque
Country. We have to pay attention to the strong link between a language
community and the geographic area where the language is spoken. According to
the "individualistic approach", languages exist only in the speakers' mind
and are thus independent of communities and territories, but languages are
not made for monologues. If we want a language to be used (instead of being
an object of pure intellectual interest), language revitalization must first
take place where concentration/density of speakers is highest, which entails
the necessity to define the size of the community and of its territory.
Unless communities and their territories are not hermetic, everybody
interested can be or become part of the community, old native speakers,
young learners, immigrants and -- of course -- linguists.

Gerd Jendraschek


----
Endangered-Languages-L Forum: endangered-languages-l at cleo.murdoch.edu.au
Web pages http://cleo.murdoch.edu.au/lists/endangered-languages-l/
Subscribe/unsubscribe and other commands: majordomo at cleo.murdoch.edu.au
----