LL-L: "Language maintenance" LOWLANDS-L, 03.MAR.2001 (01) [E]

Sat Mar 3 16:09:07 UTC 2001

 ======================================================================
  L O W L A N D S - L * 03.MAR.2001 (01) * 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: Sandy Fleming [sandy at scotstext.org]
Subject: "Language maintenance"

> From: Criostoir O Ciardha [paada_please at yahoo.co.uk]
> Subject: LL-L: "Language maintenance" (was "Language
> survival")                     LOWLANDS-L, 02.MAR.2001 (03) [E]
>
> Firstly, in the context of language standardisation, I
> have had grave doubts over how benign such a
> linguistic device actually is. It seems an irony and
> something of an oxymoron to me that in response to
> threat of extirpation, a move would be made to
> synthesise a "standard" and then propose, impose or
> present this construct as anything less than
> extirpative itself, with local forms - in the
> "standardised" context now considered as "dialects" or
> "variants" with connotations of deviance and impurity
> - in carrying on to be harassed out of existence. Is
> not the "standard" the artifice, the deviant, the
> variant?

This depends. If you look at the Irish example you give
then it's easy enough to see your point. Again, if you
look at the sort of bland, twisted renditions of
Scots that Colin has lately been talking about, then
your point is valid.

However, this doesn't preclude the usefulness of a
_written_ standard. After all, nobody speaks exactly
how they write - the capabilites of unilinear text
are simply not up to representing all the subtleties
of spoken language. Having accepted that we need to
depend on the reader's imagination and interpretative
abilities to understand the writer's meaning, it makes
sense to combine as many spoken dialects as possible,
when these subtleties that are lost in writing
comprise most of the variation between dialects. It
also makes sense to take this further and combine
those varieties where, although the sounds are
different, there is enough of a one-to-one
correspondence for a single written standard to
represent both (for example, standard Scots "guid",
"schuil" &c to represent the gweed/gid/güd, skweel/
skil/skül of various dialects. Taken a little further
than is normally done in such written standards as
English/French/German and allowing a few dialectical
spelling variants such as loaf/laif and howp/hope
allows the whole of the Scottish mainland to use
written communication that still allows the expressive
power of the dialects to ring through loud and clear.

Note that _all_ written communication is an artifice,
it doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

It's true that once you have a written standard taught
in schools it starts to affect local speech. But in
the Scottish lowlands the choice is betweena  good
standard of Scots affecting local speech or a good
standard of English. Few would doubt that Scots
dialects, strong though they be in many places, are
weaker than ever before against the standardising
influence of English as taught in Scottish schools.
Yes, a Scots Standard would alter local dialects,
but without such a standard it's likely that no
vestige spoken Scots will remain after another century
or so.

> "aberrant". Language standardisation is a
> state-building tool: its primary function is to create
> a centralised "language", the linguistic equivalent of
> a centralised state. Thus we see that linguistic
> oppression is a less obvious form (I shall term it
> "dialectisation" for brevity) of political oppression
> insofar as it defines peripherary-centre relations and
> installs a framework for defining the parameters of
> what is "suitable" "permissable" and even "correct".

I think it's a lot more to do with the sheer usefulness
of having a widespread standard. Widespread standard
languages have since Caxton's time been the key to
better careers and more accessible education, and the
idea that this is "oppression" is a bit odd when it's
what most of the population want - if English were
abolished in Welsh or Scottish schools there would
be an outcry even amongst Welsh and Scots speaking
parents.

Sandy
http://scotstext.org
A dinna dout him, for he says that he
On nae accoont wad ever tell a lee.
                          - C.W.Wade,
                    'The Adventures o McNab'

----------

From: Colin Wilson [lcwilson at starmail.com]
Subject: LL-L: "Language maintenance" LOWLANDS-L, 02.MAR.2001 (01)  [E]

Many thanks to Criostoir O Ciardha for a very interesting posting
and analysis. I agree with most of what he says, but I'd like to
add a few observations of my own.

The first is that his description of the causes and consequences
of language standardisation are based on an analysis of what
pertains in France and the current United Kingdom:

>Thus we see that linguistic
>oppression is a less obvious form (I shall term it
>"dialectisation" for brevity) of political oppression
>insofar as it defines peripherary-centre relations and
>installs a framework for defining the parameters of
>what is "suitable" "permissable" and even "correct".

and although of course this is true in these cases, it isn't always
true, and if we look elsewhere there are other models that can tell
us much.

One example that I often like to offer is that of Scottish Gaelic,
where a common orthographic convention is used (previously based on
a translation of the Bible from the 18th century, now based on a
document issued by the Scottish Education Department in 1985) but
in other respects speakers are free to use local forms at EVERY
level of discourse. Speakers from some places, notably Skye, have
(or used to have) a snobbish attitude towards Gaelic as spoken in
Lewis, but since Lewis today has a relatively large concentration of
speakers, Lewis Gaelic is often heard on radio and TV and so such
attitudes are no longer really tenable.

Another example that I like to offer is Finnish. There is a standard
form of Finnish, which is used in schools and other situations of
formal discourse. However, it's a synthetic version of Finnish and,
as far as I can tell, is no-one's native tongue.(For example, I'll
mention that its 3rd-person plural verbal conjugations appear to be
a completely artificial regularisation: in everyday usage, they are
replaced by impersonal forms just as, for example "nous allons" is
replaced in colloquial French by "on va".) Standard Finnish is
unlikely to become anyone's native tongue, because there is no
stigma whatsoever attached to "arkikieli" (everyday language) and,
indeed, the use of "kirjakieli" (book language) in everyday
discourse is actually stigmatised, and regarded as pretentious or
eccentric even among the educated classes.

As far as Criostoir O Ciardha's comments on this matter are concerned:

>Such is the installed lack of
>pride in local forms of speech, installed by
>imperialist state-building "standardisation" and
>discussed above, is that often native speakers of
>these idioms become offended if an outsider chooses to
>try to "get in" and actually become a part of their
>speech community.

this is certainly true in the current UK, to the point that I have
felt it necessary to write the following in the introduction to my
forthcoming Scots learners' course.

 > In bygone times, when Scots was a language with official status,
 > it was not unusual for people outside Scotland to learn it. We
 > know, for example, that some Scandinavian kings and queens spoke
 > Scots. However, those days are long gone, and as a student of
 > Scots today, you are taking something of a step into the unknown.
 > For the present, studying Scots is not comparable to, for
 > instance, studying Spanish in order to go to Spain or Mexico. It
 > is not unknown for resident incomers, who settle in strongly
 > Scots-speaking areas such as north-east Scotland, to learn it from
 > their spouse or from neighbours; but it remains to be seen what will
 > be the reaction of today's Scots-speakers to hearing their tongue
 > spoken by visitors who have learnt it from a book.
 >
 > I think, and you may well agree, that they really ought to be on
 > their knees thanking you for caring, but not all may see it that
 > way, at least to begin with. Bear in mind that the social stigma
 > attached to Scots is very great, and it is widely regarded as a
 > form of "bad English" spoken only by people who know no better.
 > Sadly, many speakers are likely to be unable at first to understand
 > why anyone would even want to learn Scots, and to be suspicious of
 > the motives of anyone who does so.
 >
 > If you are from outside Scotland, and intend to visit Scotland at
 > some stage, my sincere advice to you is not to try immediately to
 > deal in Scots with people that you meet casually. For one thing,
 > not all Scottish people speak Scots, and even of those who do,
 > some who hear it spoken with a "foreign" accent, and do not yet
 > understand the sincerity of your interest, may jump to the conclusion
 > that you are "mimicking" them in order to make fun of them.
 > Instead, I suggest that you spend some time getting to know people
 > and win their confidence, at first using English, which nearly all
 > Scots-speakers also understand. Then, at the appropriate point, you
 > can explain your interest in Scots, making a particular point of
 > emphasising your interest in speaking it. Some may not understand
 > what you mean by "Scots", and assume that your interest is in
 > Scottish Gaelic, but it may help if you show this book. It may also
 > help if you say that you mean "broad Scots" or, in north-east
 > Scotland, "the Doric". Even then, some will still not be
 > interested, but others — most likely those who themselves are most
 > at home in Scots anyway — will be delighted.

The only point on which I'd seriously disagree with Criostoir O Ciardha
is over the use of "taboo" words. I think the power of these words to
shock and offend is best kept for situations where that is the desired
effect: if they are used casually, they lose their power, and then
what is left?

The standard English for "it were fuckin ace" would probably be
"it was wonderful". In my variety of Scots it would be "it wis
awfu rare".

*********************************************************************
  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
*********************************************************************

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