LL-L: "Language survival" LOWLANDS-L, 13.FEB.2001 (05)

Tue Feb 13 23:19:06 UTC 2001

======================================================================
L O W L A N D S - L * 13.FEB.2001 (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, Z=Zeelandic (Zeeuws)
=======================================================================

From: Colin Wilson [lcwilson at starmail.com]
Subject: LL-L: "Language survival" (was "Language death")  LOWLANDS-L,
13.FEB.2001 (04)

At 13:52 13/02/01 -0800, R. F. Hahn wrote:

>You certainly made a compelling case, at least in my humble opinion.

My thanks to Ron for his kind comments.

>However, without wanting to distract from your point, let me ask you to
>categorize cases that do not seem to fall into either category.  I guess Low
>Saxon/Low German vs German and Dutch is a case in point, and I believe Scots
>vs English to be a similar or even identical case...
>... How would you categorize such a case?  Would it still be first
>language vs second language?  Surely it would not a case of diglossia.  Or
>would it?

I'd make a distinction between the situation described in Ron's
posting, and that which Ian James Parsley described earlier. In Ron's
situation, the language that the children bring to school is the
lesser-used language, with the language of the school itself being
the power language. In Ian James Parsley's the roles are reversed,
and this is a key distinction which limits the value of direct
comparison between the two.

On the other hand, I'd be reluctant to say that there's no
comparison at all. I've no direct experience of Low Saxon, but I do
believe that the tendency to produce diglossic rather than bilingual
adults is one reason why English-medium education has not produced
the desired result of eradicating Scots entirely. Some people have
always had to turn to Scots, to say things that their school did
not teach them how to say in English.

Television, on the other hand, has been much more damaging because
it teaches people how to say a great many things in English that no
school-teacher would ever have taught them.

*********************************************************************
  Colin Wilson                  the graip wis tint, the besom wis duin
                                the barra wadna row its lane
  writin fae Aiberdein,         an sicna soss it nivver wis seen
  the ile capital o Europe      lik the muckin o Geordie's byre
*********************************************************************

----------

From: R. F. Hahn [sassisch at yahoo.com]
Subject: Language survival

Thanks for the explanation (above), Colin.

I am under the impression that in the relative strongholds of Low Saxon/Low
German in Northern Germany (e.g., Eastern Friesland), where some people still
start off with the regional language, adults end up with German as a
"complete" language and Low Saxon as the first but "incomplete" language. The
latter is "incomplete" because it has not been used outside the sphere of home
and small community, and anything that belongs to "public" spheres
(bureaucracy, formal education, non-traditional technology, etc.) is
associated with the use of "High" German.  You will hear people talk in Low
Saxon and then switch to German or at least start using many German loans
(including calques) as they start talking about "non-traditional" matters.  I
suppose this explains the weak position of the language.

One more thing regarding Roger's point:

> I think this only contributes to survival if it is combined with strong
> nationalism.

Even if we use "ethnic assertion" in place of "nationalism," this may not be
applicable in cases where the speakers are not seen and do not see themselves
as ethnically separate from the dominant ethnicity.  This is the case, by and
large, with Low Saxon/Low German, certainly in Germany, and I believe it
applies in the Netherlands also.  I suppose that is why Low Saxon/Low German
is classified as a "regional language" rather than as a "minority language."
I have a feeling this applies to speakers of Scots also (even though they may
really be a majority as far as numbers are concerned).  Does this put these
languages into a more precarious position?  Perhaps it does, because there is
not clear dividing line other than use of language.  However, there is still
"regionalism," of which most speakers still have plenty, which, on the other
hand, does not require the use of Low Saxon, though it enhances it.

Can "language assertion" succeed without "ethnic assertion" and/or
"nationalism"?

Regards,
Reinhard/Ron

==================================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
=======================================================================