LL-L: "Language policies" [E] LOWLANDS-L, 15.MAY.1999 (02)

[RFH]

 ========================================================================
 L O W L A N D S - L * 15.MAY.1999 (02) * ISSN 1089-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
 Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
 Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/~sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
 Users Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
 A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachian, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian,
 L=Limburgish, LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic
 ==========================================================================
 You have received this because your account has 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>.
 ==========================================================================

From: "John M. Tait" <jmtait at jmt.prestel.co.uk>
Subject: Language policies

Ron wrote:

If you now start recognizing individual
>German, Low Saxon and Dutch dialects or dialect groups as regional
languages you
>are really working against this current tide.  On the other hand, it may be
>somewhat understandable that a country or region a dialect group of a
language
>used in another country choses to "elevate" this dialect group to language
>level.  You may argue that this is being done with Luxemburgish
(Letzebuergesh),
>Alsatian and Limburgish, all of which may be argued to be German dialect
>groups.  I think linguistic analysis is not the only factor here, another one
>being the ethnic and linguistic image the speakers have of themselves as
well as
>their allegiance or need of separation, whichever the case may be.

As I've probably said before, I think a major factor must be the
practicality of using a common written standard. It's been said that a
dialect is a language without an army and navy, but it would probably be
truer to say that a dialect is a language without an orthography. Whatever
factors may lead to the adoption of a particular orthography in the first
place, once that is adopted and becomes standard then the language is to
some extent defined for practical purposes. In the case of Scots, many of
the statements which are made on  whether e.g. Shetlandic or Doric are
Scots or not are based entirely on oral criteria, whether linguistic or
popular; and they become largely irrelevant when you start to tackle the
question of how these varieties can best be written.

John M. Tait.

----------

From: R. F. Hahn <sassisch at geocities.com>
Subject: Language policies

Hi, John!

I generally agree with your opinion stated above.  As you well know, I am
personally very much in favor of developing written standard varieties for
languages such as Scots and Low Saxon (Low German), languages that hitherto had
been deprived of language status recognition and thus of an opportunity to
develop supraregional literary standard varieties gradually and in accepting and
supportive environments.  At the same time I hasten to say that such a proposal
would *not* necessarily be detrimental to non-standard dialect literature.

Let me play the devil's advocate again.

I beg to consider the need for a less culturally bound, i.e., less "Western,"
view in this matter.  As much as I love writing, am fascinated by writing
systems and traditions and am the first to agree that the creation of
centralized, supraregional writing systems and language varieties tends to be
very beneficial to the concept and identity of "language", I have to concede
that writing is not the be-all and end-all of language.

There have been and still are great numbers of languages that exist wholly or at
least mostly without writing systems, yet the speakers of various dialects tend
to have a general language concept.  Granted, though, that this tends to be
limited to groups of dialects with high degrees of mutual intelligibility.

In some such cases in which writing systems are lacking, people will develop
something like a "spoken literary language" for ceremonial purposes and the
like.  (Classic cases are found in Central Asia and Siberia where itinerant
shamans and storytellers maintain(ed) unwritten "high" language varieties that
are understandable by virtually all.  There are also the cases of oratory
language styles in Polynesian languages.)  However, I do not think that this is
a general rule.

Let us also not forget that writing systems and literary language varieties can
have the opposite effect, namely a dividing rather than uniting one.  Serbian
and Croatian, for example, are for all intents and purposes one language, but
for essentially religious reasons two writing systems and literary language
varieties (based on slightly different dialects) are used.  Does this mean that
we, who are totally aware that the differences are not linguistic ones, should
agree and henceforth consider Croatian and Serbian two different languages?  And
what about cases in which languages are not recognized and are put under the
same standard language umbrella as the dialects of the dominant language?  A
case in point is Low Saxon under "High" German domination not developing its own
standard variety.  Many, many speakers have been indoctrinated into considering
that acceptable, and many still cling to and defend this even now that their
language has been recognized and thus, at least in theory, ought no longer be
thought of as dependent upon German.  Does this mean that Low Saxon is *not* a
language after all?

Regards,

Reinhard/Ron

==================================END======================================
* Please submit contributions to <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>.
* Contributions 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 performed at
   <http://linguistlist.org/subscribing/sub-lowlands-l.html>.
* Please use only Plain Text format, not Rich Text (HTML) or any other type
   of format, in  your submissions
 ==========================================================================