[lg policy] A request

Zaidi manoo at BRUNET.BN
Mon Apr 11 14:05:16 UTC 2011 

Friends
I have read this email a couple of times and cannot believe that an academic
can write such a libelous, insulting, and mind-boggling composition unless
the goddess Fury has taken possession of them. I will not respond
counter-libelously because we have come together on this list for better
things than mudslinging. 

Also overwhelming is this author's knowledge of the situation of Punjabi in
Pakistan. All sociolinguistic studies on Punjabi in Pakistan (e.g., Mansoor,
1993; Rahman, 1996 and 2002; Imtiaz-Asif, 2005) have said that Punjabi is
undergoing a shift. The author of this email lives in a different world. I
will write a detailed rejoinder in order to show that not a single
observation in this email carries weight. But at a later date because I must
complete a couple of manuscripts, and I am running against a deadline.

Regards.
Abbas Zaidi 

-----Original Message-----
From: lgpolicy-list-bounces at groups.sas.upenn.edu
[mailto:lgpolicy-list-bounces at groups.sas.upenn.edu] On Behalf Of Christina
Paulston
Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 7:09 AM
To: Language Policy List
Subject: Re: [lg policy] A request

As you have all seen, Dr. Schiffman has asked me to keep this discussion on
the list.  First a few questions to Abbas Zaidi.
"My referee" refers to whom?  Are you writing a dissertation?  Or are you
involved in some kind of competition and the referee is your judge? Does not
seem likely.  My basic question is Why do you have to pay attention to what
your referee  thinks.  In the real world that is of some importance, even in
defining concepts and data.
	Second question, are you sure your data are correct?  I don't really
believe you and here is why. In  1982 The Ethnologue lists about 58 million
speakers of Panjabi, in 2005 it lists 60 and a half million speakers, ie a
gain of 2 million speakers. Pakistan has a literacy rate of  26% so your %
of educated Panjabi speakers is not likely to  
be high;  it is a standardized written language with all forms of   
oral media, film, radio, and TV, and furthermore it is an official state
language in India.  All these are factors which contribute to lge
maintenance.  I have no economic data which would argue for shift ( I am not
saying that there aren't any, just that I don't know them ) but if Pakistan
Punjab is like the India Punjab I knew, the majority of  Panjabi speakers
live off the soil, another factor which tends toward maintenance.  In short,
Panjabi strikes me as a very poor candidate for language shift  so why are
you doing this study.
	To keep your referee happy whoever s/he be, I suggest you follow
Myers-Scotton's implied suggestion and use majority-minority languages  
ONLY quantitatively  and for comparing or labeling  demographic data   
which incidentally your government is not very keen on having made public
(personal communication).  So to answer your question, if you want to
present Panjabi as a minority language, do not use that term but as Vilfan
(1993) suggests instead label it a non-dominant or non- privileged  language
to which I would add subordinate (Paulston 1994) and make very sure that you
discuss the social factors that make you draw such a conclusion that it is
subordinate.  You have mentioned one,  is not used as medium of education.
What else?
Religion was the rationale for the creation of Pakistan, how does that
influence language policies.  You will have explicit but also implicit
rationales  for these language policies. Do you know what they are?  I would
guess that most of them serve to keep the elites as elites, that is also a
form of maintenance that often results in status quo.  What about East
Bengal;  what influence does history have on the language situation?  What
is your own ideology behind wanting to declare Panjabi as a minority
language?  What questions do you want to answer?
	I can't really answer your question about similar situations because
I don't trust your description of it.  Could you restate the question?  You
must have in mind something like  a situation where the majority of the
population speaks a language which is  ignored officially by the government?
You will find, as you mention with Wolof, tthat different degrees of it will
exist in most of sub-Sahara Africa.  It will be your task to document the
degree.  Do private schools teach Panjabi? Does a doctor in a Lahore
hospital speak to  a Panjabi speaking patient in Panjabi?  The
Ethnolinguistic Vitality tests are based on categories for LMS that can
guide you in setting questions, not for shift but for how much the
government ignores or discriminates or exploits or ? ?
whatever the social factors are for answering your questions.



On Apr 9, 2011, at 9:43 PM, Zaidi wrote:

>
> Dr Christina
> Many thanks for your response. Let me be specific. Punjabi is the 
> majority language of Pakistan (over 60 percent of Pakistanis are 
> native speakers of Punjabi). But Punjabi is absent from school to 
> university, media (print and electronic), and all the significant 
> state institutions. Punjabis themselves consider it a vulgar language 
> and educated Punjabis do not speak it to their children. Thus, there 
> is little intergenerational transmission of Punjabi.
> In terms of both Objective and Subjective Ethnolingusitic Vitality, 
> Punjabi is seriously undermined. In this scenario, a Language 
> Maintenance and Language Shift (LMLS) study on Punjabi will take it 
> not as THE majority language, but A minority language. Now my question 
> is: Does such a situation prevail elsewhere? Are there any references? 
> (I can think of Wolof at the moment.)There is however, another 
> interesting question: On what basis should Punjabi in Pakistan be 
> considered a minority language? This may sound strange because I have 
> given reasons above to support my view (that Punjabi should be 
> considered a minority language). But my referee is not satisfied with 
> this line of argument.
>
> I request more enlightenment on it.
> Regards.
> Abbas Zaidi
>
>
>
> If by majority, you mean numbers and by minority subordinate groups in 
> a nation state, all the native languages of RSA under apartheid ( and 
> probably to a degree still) would be examples. ( If you are picky, you 
> can probably find tribal languages of less  than the 3 million 
> speakers -- rough estimate of Afrikaans speakers -- which would then 
> not qualify).  If by majority you mean superordinate but small in 
> numbers, the Afrikaners of same time is an example, the  Swedes in 
> Finland during joint kingdom days, etc.  With increasing number of 
> democratic countries, and increasing clout through actual votes, the 
> first example is becoming less common.  We (sociology of language 
> people ) don't see very much in the literature of split power between 
> groups, e.g. Quebec which had Anglo economic power and Francophone 
> demographic, meaning majority votes, power  but the present language 
> policies are a result of this split power.  The Francophone concern 
> for Canadian minority language rights has not extended to their 
> indigenous population.
> 	If I have misinterpreted your question, you will have to define your
>
> terms which I suggest you do anyway. It will make for less confusion.
> But I am guilty of the same; I ( and sociolinguists in general) throw 
> the concept of power around without much or any analysis of sources 
> and explication in general.  If anyone has a useful definition, 
> analysis of power, I would love a reference or two.  By useful I mean 
> as a concept that can do solid work on the language scene. Any poli
> sci people out there?       Christina
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 9, 2011, at 11:53 AM, Zaidi wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Friends
>> In what context(s) can a majority language be considered a minority 
>> language? Are there some examples?
>> Many thanks and Regards.
>> Abbas Zaidi
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list 
>> lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
>> To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format:
>> https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list
>
> _______________________________________________
> This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list 
> lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
> To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format:
> https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus 
> signature database 6029 (20110409) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list 
> lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
> To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: 
> https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list

_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format:
https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 6032 (20110411) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com



_______________________________________________
This message came to you by way of the lgpolicy-list mailing list
lgpolicy-list at groups.sas.upenn.edu
To manage your subscription unsubscribe, or arrange digest format: https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/listinfo/lgpolicy-list

More information about the Lgpolicy-list mailing list