LL-L: "Language conflicts" LOWLANDS-L, 24.JUL.2000 (05) [E/S]

[Lowlands-L]

 ======================================================================
  L O W L A N D S - L * 24.JUL.2000 (05) * ISSN 189-5582 * LCSN 96-4226
  Posting Address: <lowlands-l at listserv.linguistlist.org>
  Web Site: <http://www.geocities.com/sassisch/rhahn/lowlands/>
  User's Manual: <http://www.lsoft.com/manuals/1.8c/userindex.html>
  Archive: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/lowlands-l.html>
  =======================================================================
  A=Afrikaans, Ap=Appalachean, D=Dutch, E=English, F=Frisian, L=Limburgish
  LS=Low Saxon (Low German), S=Scots, Sh=Shetlandic
  =======================================================================

 From: Sandy Fleming [sandy at scotstext.org]
Subject: "Language politics"

> From: Colin Wilson [lcwilson at iee.org]
> Subject: LL-L: "Language politics" 15.JUL.2000 (04) [E/S]
>
> At 18:55 15/07/00 -0700, Sandy Fleming wrote:
> >(I, Colin Wilson, previously wrote)
> >>Perhaps this is a first step that we ought to take, a survey of
public
> >>attitudes to the official promotion of Scots.
> >
> >And how is this going to be done?
>
> I think the most obvious way is for the SLS to pay for someone to
> do it, someone who has the relevant expertise. As far as I know,
> the SLS could afford it.

Colin, your news on the state of the SLS never fails to surprise me! I
always imagined they were struggling financially. I can't emphasise
enough
the importance of having surveys done professionally, though - a
botched
survey is a lot easier to do than a good one, and gives results that
can be
interpreted to mean almost anything, and therefore would play right
into the
hands of those in power who are determined to interpret it to mean that
Scots doesn't exist, or doesn't matter.

On the subject of money, an opinion poll (as opposed an to academic
survey
such as the one that gave rise to the Linguistic Atlas of Scotland)
really
has to offer incentives for taking the trouble to fill the form or
whatever,
independent of the subject matter. For example, the census offers
staying
out of jail as an incentive, commercial surveys offer prizes. Otherwise
those who have a special motive for replying are liable to swamp all
others,
and introduce a severe bias (eg people who feel _threatened_ by Scots
might
account for most of the response). So it may cost a lot more than just
the
printing and postage!

However, taking your other point:

> From: Colin Wilson [lcwilson at iee.org]
> Subject: LL-L: "Language politics" LOWLANDS-L, 23.JUL.2000 (02) [E]
>
> At 21:52 23/07/00 -0700, john feather wrote:
> >
> >Not only do curricula get overcrowded but there is a danger that
teaching
> >Scots may be seen as a means of imposing the culture of the
> white majority on minorities.
>
> There's no risk of that, of course, if it's taught only to children
whose
> families want them to learn it.

...even if the majority (ie city-dwellers) didn't want Scots taught to
their
children, I suppose we could still make a strong case for teaching
Scots in
certain areas. I'd been thinking more in terms of a vote than a survey,
I suppose (Scotland has set a bad precendent there!).

John Magnus wrate:

> Replying to Sandy here, the problem is that the assumption that
> it is ok to
> allow a language to die because its native speakers are no longer
> interested is effectively to underwrite as ethical the circumstances
which
> led both to the decline of the language and to the lack of interest.
There
> is also a major question over the apparent assumption that ethics and
> intelectual loss are not connected.

Yes, I see your point about ethics and intellectual loss being
connected -
there are many obvious cases as far as documented information is
concerned
(such as Scottish Protestant iconoclasm and English neglect wiping out
every
Pictish document in existence - that is really pissing me off at the
moment!), but as far as _living_ languages go, I wonder if it could be
argued that the native speakers bear the full responsibility for either
maintaining or neglecting the language ("maintaining" in this case
meaning
bringing up children who speak it)? Then if the language dies because
they
choose to pass on a different language to their children (presumably
because
they believe it's best for their children), is it their choice and
nothing
to do with outsiders? In which case it wouldn't be unethical to "drop"
the
language, however much outsiders may be interested in it. There is such
a big difference between a living, spoken language and what can be
written in
or about it, that a linguist who only has an academic interest can't
really
take it upon himself to keep it alive (though he might bear the
responsibility for documenting as much as possible - an opportunity
that was
missed with Cornish - or even trying to interest native speakers and
others
in it). But on the other hand, I know ethics is such a muddy subject it
probably wasn't a good idea to ask the question in the first place!

To put all the above (including the reply to Colin) together, the
problem
here as I see it is that in the Scottish Lowlands, the larger the town,
the
more likely is the populace to speak just English, and therefore to
want
their children to speak English or even see Scots as a threat. Thus the
way
forward might be to take a regional approach to having Scots taught in
schools?

Of course, it may transpire that even English speaking Scots would be
interested in having their children taught Scots in school - if it was
made clear to them what Scots actually is. That would be a pleasant
surprise!

(If this mailing gives the impression that I'm trying to wind the whole
subject up, it's true - but only because I'm going on holiday soon so
my contibutions will have to be curtailed one way or another!)

Sandy
http://scotstext.org
  Things in this subloonary warld bein far frae
perfeck, 'No that bad' is the maist that mortal
man can venture tae say while here ablo.
             - Catherine P. Slater, 'Marget Pow'

----------

From: Sandy Fleming [sandy at scotstext.org]
Subject: "Language politics"

>  From: John M. Tait [jmtait at altavista.net]
>  Subject: LL-L: "Mutual comprehension" LOWLANDS-L, 19.JUL.2000 (01)
[E]
>
> As I have always understood it, Lowland Scots - and this is very much
true
> of Shetlanders - pride themselves on their hospitality towards
incomers,
> and are very critical of the Welsh especially, and to some extent of
the
> Gaels, for their attitudes to outsiders. I have heard Scots complain
> bitterly of the Welsh attitudes to Scottish holidaymakers in Wales;

I'd suggest that this is a lot to do with perception and expectations, and
probably also, as I've sometimes observed when on holiday with friends,
that many people have no idea what's really going on in a linguistic
situation.  Most English people I know speak of the French as unfriendly,
whereas I always find them very friendly.  The reason for this is obvious
to me - it's that I speak French - but the non-French speakers in the group
never accept this argument and instead bring up examples of French
unfriendliness that they imagine to be independent of language.  I've
noticed something similar in Belgium where the Walloons never tire of
explaining how unfriendly the Flemings are - and vice versa.  This doesn't
seem to be merely political: they support their assertions with many
personal experiences of their dealings with the "others".  As you say,
Inverness seems unfriendly to Aberdonians, Aberdeen to Glaswegians and so
on - in other words, it may be an almost universal phenomenon.

The idea that the Welsh only speak Welsh when the English are present is a
stock-in-trade of the sort of club comedians that can only be funny by
disparaging someone who's different from themselves, which may help to add
to the myth.  The situation in Wales can be a bit odd because Welsh and
English exist in a balance but they're not at all miscible the way Scots
and English, or even Shetlandic and English, can be.  When I lived in
Wales, it was accepted practice to use Welsh if it didn't exclude anyone
from the conversation, but if English monolinguals sauntered up, it wasn't
considered either practical or necessary to turn the whole conversation to
English.  Usually the English speaker can either walk away or attempt to
make conversation in English with someone who doesn't seem too interested
in the Welsh conversation.  After that, the new conversation might swing
round to English.

I'd suggest that the phenomenon with tourists may be a matter of perception
- they hear some English spoken, then can't seem to get into a conversation
because it's in Welsh, and imagine they're being excluded while the
residents don't even notice anything untoward is happening.

I'm not so sure about the wisdom of the Shetlandic situation as you
describe it, John.  For me, the result of being excluded from conversations
(especially involving a certain Megan) was that I learned Welsh.

Though I'm familiar with the Highlands of Scotland from childhood, I've
only been there once in my adult life, and the only language problem we had
was in a pub in Portree where everybody was speaking German!

Sandy
http://scotstext.org
  Things in this subloonary warld bein far frae
perfeck, 'No that bad' is the maist that mortal
man can venture tae say while here ablo.
             - Catherine P. Slater, 'Marget Pow'

----------

From: john feather [johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk]
Subject: Language conflicts

Criostoir commented:

>John Feather adds little to the debate by implying that only bilingualism
can prevail, with the 'standard' language (i.e., English, German, Dutch
etc.) alongside the minority's own ethnic languages of Turkish, Panjabi,
Cantonese etc. This is an incredibly narrow description and understanding
of
the situation with reagrds to ethnic minorities in the United Kingdom at
least. John implies to begin with that ethnic minorities are conversant in
only one language outside say 'standard' English, with it being Cantonese,
Panjabi etc.<

I had written:
>It may be that the languages I have chosen are not optimal for my argument

so substitute X, Y and Z if it helps you to think about the issues. Maybe
Turkish in Hansestadt Hamburg would do as well<

I thought that I was doing the fairly standard academic thing of reducing a

problem to its basics in order to explore the principles rather than
getting
bogged down in details. I suggested the alternative of Turkish speakers
living in Hamburg partly because to the best of my knowledge ethnic Turks
living in Germany are not generally multilingual, though I know many
Indians
in Britain are.

I hope most people understood that I was trying to explore - as I thought I

had made quite clear - a point which seemed to flow from what Ron had said
about people rejecting "Platt things". My specific question - how does one
prioritise minority languages in the school curriculum - still seems worth
asking.

John Feather johnfeather at sceptic1.freeserve.co.uk

----------

From: Henry Pijffers [hpijffers at home.nl]
Subject: LL-L: "Language conflicts" (was "Loanguage politics",
"Language maintenance", "Language planning") LOWLANDS-L,        24.JUL.2000
(04) [E]

> From: Criostoir O Ciardha [paada_please at yahoo.co.uk]
>
> I'm very surprised that Frisian language television is
> only available on cable. I assumed - naively,
> evidently - that the Netherlands were fairly
> enlightened when it came to minority issues, but if a
> language that is spoken by the majority of Fryslan
> (55%) is not broadcast so that majority can enjoy
> television in its own language, that comes very close
> to linguistic hegemony and intolerance. Very
> disappointing.
I believe that in the Low-Saxon area we have an even larger majority of
65%.
And we don't get any... Sure, we have regional television, but it's mostly
in
Dutch. Low-Saxon is only used for the parochial type of thing.

Another thing: I just lost 2 friends the other day, in a very sad way. I
just
wanted to try a little experiment and see if they could fully understand me

if I emailed them in LS. Well, we never got to that experiment, because
they
started saying things that it was only spoken by undereducated people,
who still live in the middle ages. The whole idea of speaking Dutch was
(according to them), that everybody could understand eachother. I asked
them
why we didn't speak German then. Big silence... I was even (jokingly, but
still)
made part of the Twente Separation Movement (translated...), so I'm a
terrorist
if I speak LS. That's new... Even comparisons to Hitler were made. They
said
Hitler tried to impose German on everybody. But I just turned that around,
'cause they were imposing Dutch on me.... Can't people just leave eachother

alone and just try to understand one another? Shouldn't be that hard...
Germans, Dutchmen and Saxons can understand eachother without much
problems, if they just put a little effort into it. I guess that's just to
much these
days...

That was all last friday. Today they acted like they said no such thing,
except
that it was "impractical". So I laughed in their face again, because I
don't have
a speech problem with northern Germans... And I read Scandinavian
languages,
without any training, while they have a hard time even to find cognates.
Also my
German is 200% better than theirs, again without any training. Same goes
for
my English (don't take my current state of English into account please,
'cause
I'm in a baaaaaaad mood!). Last thing they stated that LS wasn't spoken in
the
cities (the farmer thing again...). I figure there's still a (small) LS
majority, even
in the large cities. They call it practical that I should speak only Dutch.
I call
it oppression. And if by taking a stand, that means I lose 2 friends, then
so be it.
Nobody who calls me undereducated, all of the above and much worse things,
is
worthy of being called my friend.

> From: Criostoir O Ciardha [paada_please at yahoo.co.uk]
> Subject: LL-L: "Language maintenance" LOWLANDS-L, 21.JUL.2000 (07) [E]
>
> Dear all,
>
> Henry wrote:
>
> > I think we should stop waiting on them to
> > acknowledge our rights, and give us "permission"
> > (what an ugly word to use actually, who the hell are
>
> > they we have to ask them for permission???) We
> > should just take our right to use our language. And
> > we should promote our culture ourselves. So who will
>
> > set up a tv station in their mother tongue? Who will
>
> > do the newspaper? Who a radio station?
> > And in general: anything language related. If we can
> > do that, then we have a renaissance. "They" don't
> > even have to like it, let alone support it or make
> > an effort for it. [...]
> > My point is, we have to stop waiting on them to take
> > action, and take action ourselves. Nobody will work
> > for free in your graden, you shall have to work it
> > yourself. It's your garden, not theirs...
>
> Well, I agree entirely with all the sentiments here
> expressed. The idea of "permission" is fairly
> offensive when you think about it. It's all part of
> turning a culture such as west Frisian - which is
> spoken by a majority of those in Fryslan - into a
> 'minority' culture within a larger, externally
> differentiated entity. Thus Frisians, despite being
> the larger group in Fryslan, become a minority group
> within the Netherlands. It's a dishonest techninque
> that seeks to minoritise ways of thinking too: hence
> the notion of 'permission' to speak one's language in
> one's own territory. The more the minority can be made
> silent, be made ineffective in its protests and
> tolerant to linguistic oppression, the easier it is to
> engender 'Netherlandisation' or 'Germanisation' or
> 'Anglicisation' policies with little chance of
> opposition.
I express this earlier I believe, but I felt I had to make the
statement again. If you count all the people that have only
Dutch as their native language, and if you count all the people
that have Low-Saxon as their native language, then you would
probably see that the Low-Saxon group is actually BIGGER
than the Dutch group.  So who's a minority? Maybe we should
oppress them for a while ;) (joking!)

> From: R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com]
> Subject: Language conflicts
>
> Dear Lowlanders,
>
> As far as I know, a "minority" person (either "indigenous" or "foreign")
> learning minority languages of countries or regions in which they live is

> most certainly not unheard of, though it may be rare.
>
> A friend of mine occasionally teaches Westerlauwer ("West") Frisian to
> residents of Fryslân who were born outside the Netherlands or just
outside
> the province and whose first language is not Dutch, such as people from
> Netherlands-dominated American regions and from Southern Europe.
> Apparently, these people *elect* to learn the language of the region in
> which they live, since there is no legal requirement to learn it.
>
As I've probably said a dozen times before, I'm originally from Risen,
(Rijssen in Dutch and as on the maps) a town in Twente. There is a vast
majority of Low-Saxon speakers there. But also a large Turkish minority.
I know of several young Turkish people who have learned to speak
Low-Saxon exactly like I do (you couldn't tell the differenc!) and
surprise,
surprise, they're  the most succesfull of the Turkish people when it comes
to work, friends and other relationships. (what do you mean,
"impractical"...)
In Risen nobody REQUIRES you to speak LS, but if you do, you will do a
whole lot better.

Actually the language is so strong in Risen, that the a well-known
institute
for the Twentish dialect wanted to make it THE "dialect-town". But I'm
afraid
they meant a Dutch dialect by that, instead of an LS one, so I don't know
whether I should be happy about any initiatives, or that I should be
against it.

well, good holden en hebt ehrbied fuyr anderen!
Henry

 ==================================END===================================
  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>.
  =======================================================================
  * 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 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
  =======================================================================